|
analog: there is a long tradition in christian theology, formalized in the 12th century by folk like william of ockham--nominalism--the idea is that human understanding, being finite, cannot know or understand god, being infinite. the organized church would be less than happy with this position as it would not give them a postiion to work from--the 12th century counterposition to ockham's was outlined at great great length by aquinas.
many heretical movements were effectively nominalist. martin luther was a kind of nominalist-lite (you cant read or understand the bible except through "grace" which leads you to a kind of unknowing knowing...) pascal was much more hardcore. kierkegaard as well, but he never goes as far as pascal.
most protestant denominations that i am familiar with would reject nominalist positions outright--thge closest i know about would be pentecostals, who emphasize the role of direct spiritual illumination--but they wrap it up in a limited literal general interpretation of the bible, which i have never understood.
if there was ever anything about chrisitianity that appealed to me, it is nominalism. you see some of its implications in nietzsche...the position would lead you to a kind of remaining open to possibilities beyond human understanding while at the same time reducing most existing movements to collections of phrases that refer to the ability to generate phrases and not to anything outside of that.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|