How do I even begin to wrap my head around this book? I spent forty-five minutes in the kitchen with my parents the other night reading pages 200-210 and discussing them at length. Needless to say, this book is wonderfullly thought-provoking.
I can't really decide at this point, however, whether or not Stephen has failed or succeeded. In society and in the church, it is failure but to himself it seems to be a different case. He has overcome that which had been holding him back. I really admire in him the fact that he really tried to submerse himself in the life he did not appreciate, the church. I think that gave him an edge as he had deeply experienced it all and now had a legitimate reason to argue against it. It reminds me of election season. Everyone runs around proclaiming their views, when in reality few have taken the time to see the other side. You must "walk a mile in their shoes" in order to truly understand why you believe what you believe. This reminds me of a point of Stephen's, in talking about art with Lynch. He says "Truth is beheld by the intellect which is appeased by the most satisfying relations of the intelligible" (202). This quote means people will believe what sounds pleasing to them and happens to conveniently make sense. I think that's why Stephen succeeds, because he notices these specific aspects of life and understands that "the first step in the direction of truth is to understand the frame and scope of the intellect itself, to comprehend the act itself of intellection" (202). He knows that in order to know anything, he must know how to know, put simply. He searches for such a deeper understanding in everything in life. Sometimes, this may put him at a disadvantage- he may know too much. But I believe it gives him an edge above everyone else that has not taken the time to consider such ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment