Comments on: Defining the Secular: Charles Taylor (pt. 2)

By: Deacon Hall

Deacon Hall — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:42:57 +0000

Very good! I hope you get to study with Joas, too.

By: Studious

Studious — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:20:46 +0000

Casanova’s great, man. I’ve read a couple of his essays, and I need to get that book. I just met Hans Joas (who usually translates Casanova into German) and hopefully I will get to study with him. I’ll have to break out my old copies of Plato, as well, to see what you are getting at.

By: Deacon Hall

Deacon Hall — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:09:17 +0000

Yes, Taylor talks about it some in his book. To read more of Taylor’s thoughts directly, the passages I had in mind correspond to the category “secular time” in the index. But I was also stealing a lot from Jose Casanova’s book “Public Religions in the Modern World.” He deals with similar issues as Taylor in his first two and last chapters. However, Casanova is treating the issue of secularization from a bit of a different context than Taylor; he’s treating secularization in terms of Taylor’s “second understanding” of the concept, i.e. in terms of what sociologists call social differentiation. At the end of the day, however, I still think Plato does the best job explaining the relationship between the secular and sacred, if not explicitly, then at least latently. I’d refer anyone to his Phaedo, Timeus, and (of course) Republic; to understand these books, I believe, is to gain an insight into the motor behind much classical culture, at least in my humble and rightfully ignored opinion!

By: Studious

Studious — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:45:20 +0000

I’m enjoying these reviews. The book is pretty dense, so keep ‘em coming. I got to read the first 100 pages of the book until some other punk reserved it. Your connection of “saeculum” to classical society is interesting. Does Taylor talk about this in his book? And are there a Greek term that corresponds roughly to “secular”?

By: Deacon Hall

Deacon Hall — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:37:42 +0000

Good, man!

I haven’t read Ken Wilber yet, but I just checked out his site and I’ll start paying attention a bit more. Thanks for the tip.

By: Mike Morrell

Mike Morrell — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:42:11 +0000

Please, keep ‘em coming! You’ll make me either plunk down the dough to get Taylor’s book, or you’ll do such a good job summarizing that I won’t have to. Excellent either way!

PS: Do you read Ken Wilber?

By: Deacon Hall

Deacon Hall — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:09:51 +0000

I do tend to think that this breakdown is a positive thing. One of the interpretations (which I’ll eventually get to a bit more) would argue that precisely this breakdown between the secular and the sacred allowed for what is called “social differentiation” in sociological terms. That is, with the breakdown of the sacred/secular, the secular (through the preaching of persons like Luther and Calvin) became sacred in its own right, allowing for the development of autonomous social sciences. So, disciplines like political science, economics, law, medicine, natural science all gain ground as disciplines worthy to pursue both in their own right and, as I will outline next, for their usefulness in bringing about the true peace of the Kingdom of God. So that’s what the Reformers thought, anyways. And, they’re not completely wrong, in my opinion. The technological advances from these sciences have given us heated homes, electricity, relatively secure political institutions, good jobs (for you guys anyways), and Penicilin. Of course, they’ve also given us climate change and have made us all the more effective at killing one another. Accordingly, the Radically Orthodox authors would argue with me on my relatively positive view of this phenomenon (for which they use computers, heated homes, and Penicillin to do).

So, I tend to think the breakdown is good, although, as Taylor will say, it has its tradeoffs. Another question in this same line is whether or not Christianity depends on the breakdown of this sacred/secular distinction (as the Reformers and thinkers like Kierkegaard tended to think), or whether it presupposes just such a distinction (as many Catholics thinkers and the Radically Orthodox tend to think)?

By: deacon burrley

deacon burrley — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:14:43 +0000

Do you think this breakdown is a positive or negative thing? This is a really great series so far.