While speaking about the Nazi agenda between 1933 and 1945, the core this statement seems to be both indiscriminate and timeless in application:
…as soon as finite humanity wants to bring about the conditions of the infinite, of eternal peace and equality, only terrorism results.
– Hans Schwarz, Eschatology (2000), 329
I am in the midst of tackling multiple tasks all at once in a fairly short amount of time. In many ways it has proven to be a wonderful mental exercise, while in other ways it has been rather exhausting. (Lack of sleep might factor into the exhaustion bit).
One of the projects is another book review for the Stone Campbell Journal (SCJ). This time, the review focuses on Yung-Suk Kim‘s dissertation turned book, Christ’s Body at Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (2008). It comes from a series of books with which I am admittedly unfamiliar: Paul in Critical Contexts; however, if Kim’s work represents the tenor of the series, it does appear to be rather interesting and worthy of consideration. My goal is to have the review submitted to SCJ this Thursday. Something that I failed to ask with the Gorman review was whether or not I would be allowed to provide a digital copy of the review on this blog. This time, I will specifically ask to do so–for both Gorman and Kim. If I am permitted to do so, I will provide an update with a link for the PDFs.
Another project is a dictionary article that I recently submitted. The article focuses on the topic of Stoicism and its influence within the Graeco-Roman world. The dictionary for which it was written is rather unique. It is part of the HyperText Bible Project, which seeks to provide scholarly resources in a user-friendly web-based format. That being the case, my article had to follow a format with which I have had minimal experience. However, as I made my way through the article, the format and style began to make perfect sense. Presently, the article is slotted to be reviewed by an unknown (to me) scholar who will either approve it or ask for revisions (or scrap the whole thing). Obviously, I’m hoping for approval.
Thirdly, I have submitted the latest revision of my PhD proposal, which seems to be the one that will take. It has been a long and arduous journey to get to this point, but I would not trade a single moment. The hope is that the only corrections needed are typographical (if any). I meet with the supervisors this Thursday (25-Jun) to discuss its preliminary acceptance and/or need for slight editing. Once that meeting comes and goes, I will be able to post more details regarding the project.
Finally, I have been on the search for additional funding for this PhD program, which has proven to be rather difficult (and disheartening at times). When Jenn and I moved to Cheltenham, we admittedly moved with a number of hopeful assumptions. There is one really good possibility on the horizon, so I am presently writing up a “request for funding” proposal and hope to submit it by Wednesday at the latest. Please keep us in mind and in your prayers as we pursue this opportunity and continue to search for further possibilities as well.
The following is no doubt a bit long, but the argument is certainly worth pondering:
“interpreting the philosophical tradition by means of the Hegelian schema is by now a fixture of our way of thinking. . . . [For example:] As you know, the relationship between Parmenides and Heraclitus is a controversial one. One side tells us that Parmenides criticizes Heraclitus, another side claims that Heraclitus is a critic of Parmenides, and yet another side says that there is probably no historical relationship here at all. Maybe the truth is that neither of the two knew anything of the other. It would not be at all unlikely that they had no connection to each other whatsoever–at least not during their respective periods of creative activity–since, after all, the one lived in Ephesus, the other in Elea. Why has this thesis of mine caused such a stir? The answer is clear: to this day, Hegel has a hand in everything! Even the historian finds it plausible that all things are bound together in the progressive development of knowledge! This historical way of thinking, which arises in the nineteenth century and still appears plausible to us today, seems to me a convincing example of the living Hegelian legacy.”
– Hans-Georg Gadamer, The Beginning of Philosophy (1998), 21-22