Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 30, 2017 at 14:39 history edited Dɑvïd CC BY-SA 3.0
rephrased opening gambit to remove reference to extinct tag
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:47 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:42 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/ with https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/
Dec 5, 2013 at 3:05 comment added Tau @JonEricson-I have to disagree with the statement that "the techniques for reading Plato, Philo, and Philippians are identical." The fact that there are linguistic simularities exist, but beyond that, even the interpretive challenges are different, as the 'authors' used certain words to convey 'truths', not found in Plato or Philo; who had a different audience and consequently used 'language' differently to exposit their views. What I see is an attempt to 'secularize' the understanding of Scripture to a set of universal axioms; downgrading it to 'literature' which we are allowed to 'critique'.
Nov 30, 2013 at 1:55 comment added Jon Ericson @Jas3.1: I find that argument distinctly uncompelling because it sets up a false dichotomy. People (including scientists) tend to change their worldviews based on a combination of factors. It's rare to find people who've changed their religious convictions via pure reason. Gadamer suggests for humanities as Kuhn says of science: progress does not proceed by strictly following methods, but by occational, perhaps revolutionary, insights.
Nov 30, 2013 at 0:35 comment added Jas 3.1 How would you address Monica's argument that the very (prominent) reality of people changing their worldviews is evidence that a bias can be intentionally bracketed?
Nov 30, 2013 at 0:34 history edited Jas 3.1 CC BY-SA 3.0
added missing words
Nov 30, 2013 at 0:20 history answered Jon Ericson CC BY-SA 3.0