GENEROUS ENGAGEMENT: THINKING WITH OUR HISTORICAL INTERLOCUTORS

facilitated by Natalie Runkle Griffioen

Thursday, February 22 from 5:30-6:45PM

Recommended readings will be shared with participants in advance.

“See the bear in his own den before you judge of his conditions.” This fictional proverb from the writings of C.S. Lewis is commendable to anyone who seeks to engage generously with a historical interlocutor – especially one so enigmatic as Origen of Alexandria (AD 185-254). Origen, a gifted and prolific Christian philosopher, known among friends for his intensity and zeal, has generated controversy from the moment he first put stylus to papyrus. Such controversy has made it near-impossible for philosophers and theologians to determine what Origen believed, let alone to understand the man behind the ideas. The difficulties with studying Origen today often stem from two sources: first, he is often dismissed as heretical (or at least heterodox) by many in the Christian tradition; second, he is often not considered a “real” philosopher by secular historians of philosophy who have tended to exclude Christian thinkers from the mainstream philosophical tradition. In this discussion, we will consider the importance of asking how Origen would have considered himself, using the categories available during the time when he lived, rather than simply imposing on him categories that are familiar to us today. What is required of us to engage a multifaceted thinker who spent his life navigating a complex and even dangerous intellectual and ecclesiastical landscape? If we see Origen "in his own den," how might both our research and our academic habits benefit?

facilitated by Jared Brunner

Thursday, April 18 from 5:30-6:45PM

Recommended readings will be shared with participants in advance.

In this session, we will explore the value of reading “bad” philosophy and the best practices in doing so. In late fourteenth-century England, a self-taught London scribe named Thomas Usk composed the Testament of Love, a philosophical dialogue in Middle English prose, to repair his reputation. Usk had recently been imprisoned for treason against King Richard II, had sold out the names of his co-conspirators in hopes of a pardon, and would soon be publicly executed for his crimes. Though framed as an apology for his life against his accusers, Usk’s Testament is a dense and amateurish philosophical disputation of questions ranging from the nature of the highest good to the compatibility of free will and providence. Yet, as Melinda Nielsen writes, “For some modern readers… the Testament of Love is perhaps Usk’s worst crime, presenting a displeasing mixture of high professions, ulterior motives, florid prose, and disjointed argument.” We will ask what value may be gained in engaging charitably with a philosopher considered “bad” from our vantage point—both in the sense of his ignoble aims and of his inadequate logical reasoning. We will consider what dispositions we must adopt and what virtues we might cultivate when generously reading a dismissed text. And we will consider, in doing so, how we may broaden our picture of intellectual practice for both our historical interlocutors and ourselves.