Thanks! I didn't have time to revisit Auerbach, thus I failed to mention him, but I do think his famous reading misses the implied sense of historicity in the poem—that some peoples are backward and some civilized—which, on the metaphysical level, also implies that some of the gods (Poseidon) represent the primordial and some (Athena) a humane advance. Not everything in the narrative is on the same level; e.g., there is a "romance" plane of unknown islands Odysseus visits and a "realist" level of named real places. Rather there's an implicit historical continuum moving toward Odysseus's enlightened rational governance or that of the Phaecians—patriarchal by our standards, but not absolutely, as it involves the model "marriage of true minds" of Odysseus and Penelope and the initiative and relative independence of Nausicaa.
Having now listened to the episode, I think you briefly mentioned him as a Jewish intellectual who had some reservations about the poem, but not in any depth. I probably agree! I'm partway persuaded by Benardete as far as I can understand him, but with a little skepticism about the hermeneutic. He's great at pointing out that the restoration at the end of the poem really can't be a return to the previous order.
Hans Jonas’s book is still very useful today. Particularly in its distinction between "Iranian" and "Syrian-Egyptian" Gnosticism, the former being dualist and the latter monist. Extremely important to understand the consequences stemming from viewing the fall of man as caused by the divinity itself or as the result of an attack by an outside force. I'm starting to write about this over on my page on this site and finding it highly fertile ground
Fantastic stuff!
Thank you! I’m curious to hear your thoughts in the next Extremely Difficult Realization lol
The second chapter of Mimesis (on Roman literature and the New Testament) is quite a ride as well.
It really is!
Thanks! I didn't have time to revisit Auerbach, thus I failed to mention him, but I do think his famous reading misses the implied sense of historicity in the poem—that some peoples are backward and some civilized—which, on the metaphysical level, also implies that some of the gods (Poseidon) represent the primordial and some (Athena) a humane advance. Not everything in the narrative is on the same level; e.g., there is a "romance" plane of unknown islands Odysseus visits and a "realist" level of named real places. Rather there's an implicit historical continuum moving toward Odysseus's enlightened rational governance or that of the Phaecians—patriarchal by our standards, but not absolutely, as it involves the model "marriage of true minds" of Odysseus and Penelope and the initiative and relative independence of Nausicaa.
Having now listened to the episode, I think you briefly mentioned him as a Jewish intellectual who had some reservations about the poem, but not in any depth. I probably agree! I'm partway persuaded by Benardete as far as I can understand him, but with a little skepticism about the hermeneutic. He's great at pointing out that the restoration at the end of the poem really can't be a return to the previous order.
Hans Jonas’s book is still very useful today. Particularly in its distinction between "Iranian" and "Syrian-Egyptian" Gnosticism, the former being dualist and the latter monist. Extremely important to understand the consequences stemming from viewing the fall of man as caused by the divinity itself or as the result of an attack by an outside force. I'm starting to write about this over on my page on this site and finding it highly fertile ground