|
Register | Blogging | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#7 (permalink) |
Blue Bleezin' Blind Drunk
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the largest wine glass (aka Lebanon)
Posts: 2,200
|
![]()
I think that's by far the greatest book cover I've ever seen. I'm sure this whole ambiguity is kept throughout the book. Getting it.
__________________
Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 (permalink) |
;)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]()
An overview? Fuck. Zizek basically re-reads Christianity as a Hegelian and makes it a whole lot less appealing (read: more nihilistic) but at the same time more comprehensible (for me, at least). Milbank counters Zizek's dialectical interpretation of God (a God who is alienated from himself) with a God who exceeds himself, who is not only love but is more love than he is, and this excess love forms "the universe." Then Zizek calls Milbank a pagan and develops his "atheistic Christianity" some more. It's an atheism vs theism debate that looks nothing like the ones Dawkins & co are waging, because it actually takes into account post-modernism and the problematic status of "reason" and "truth." Dense as fuck and probably requires some understanding of Hegel (and Lacan), but invaluable as far as I'm concerned.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|