02-12-2013, 07:29 AM
to Leanne: Intellectual creation. That is a fine concept because it encompasses not only fiction.
Bc you mentioned Augustine: this is a case where I find biographical detail important. Knowing that he was first a Manichean (and therefore drawn to some kind of gnosticism) does help understand his writings better. Why would a reader not want to make use of that bit of info? If you know in more detail what informs his writing, it informs your reading more too (enriches your understanding).
Of course it is possible that you could get to the same results studying the geneology of the ideas laid down in his writings (the texts his texts are built and based upon). But why not combine both techniques as it's been done away)?
To Edward: (just as an aside I posted my astrophysical revelations on the "fun board". Just saying. about getting modern physics. Your source is not alone. Couple a years ago Dawkins gave a fine lecture (at Tedtalks) about what we know about the universe. We are in a kind of middle world: we understand more about the Cosmos than ants do but based upon what we know what to be probably true (quantum theory etc), we are like ants and we know it. I paraphrased, but it was on this line. I must confess that to be aware of that, is not very comforting, but I believe him.)
And more about Slovenian and the post-modernist with that heavy Slovenian accent later.
Bc you mentioned Augustine: this is a case where I find biographical detail important. Knowing that he was first a Manichean (and therefore drawn to some kind of gnosticism) does help understand his writings better. Why would a reader not want to make use of that bit of info? If you know in more detail what informs his writing, it informs your reading more too (enriches your understanding).
Of course it is possible that you could get to the same results studying the geneology of the ideas laid down in his writings (the texts his texts are built and based upon). But why not combine both techniques as it's been done away)?
To Edward: (just as an aside I posted my astrophysical revelations on the "fun board". Just saying. about getting modern physics. Your source is not alone. Couple a years ago Dawkins gave a fine lecture (at Tedtalks) about what we know about the universe. We are in a kind of middle world: we understand more about the Cosmos than ants do but based upon what we know what to be probably true (quantum theory etc), we are like ants and we know it. I paraphrased, but it was on this line. I must confess that to be aware of that, is not very comforting, but I believe him.)
And more about Slovenian and the post-modernist with that heavy Slovenian accent later.