Philip F. Gura
Autor(a) de American transcendentalism
About the Author
Philip F. Gura is the William S. Newman Distinguished Professor of American Literature and Culture at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Image credit: UNC faculty page
Obras por Philip F. Gura
Associated Works
The Norton Anthology of American Literature (Eighth Edition) (Vol. A) (2011) — Editor, algumas edições — 118 exemplares
Etiquetado
Conhecimento Comum
- Data de nascimento
- 1950-06-14
- Sexo
- male
- Nacionalidade
- USA
- País (no mapa)
- USA
- Local de nascimento
- Ware, Massachusetts, USA
- Educação
- Harvard College (BA|1972)
Harvard University (Ph.D.|1977) - Ocupações
- Professor of American Literature and Culture, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Fatal error: Call to undefined function isLitsy() in /var/www/html/inc_magicDB.php on line 425- Philip F. Gura is William S. Newman Distinguished Professor of American Literature and Culture at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Membros
Críticas
Prémios
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Estatísticas
- Obras
- 15
- Also by
- 2
- Membros
- 567
- Popularidade
- #44,118
- Avaliação
- 3.9
- Críticas
- 9
- ISBN
- 37
Here I'm getting away from a strict book review to personal thoughts on the subject, if anyone is interested. Don't take it as a personal insult if you don't agree with me. I read this after reading the two excellent double biographies of Louisa May Alcott and her parents: Outcasts from Eden (Bronson) and Marmee and Louisa (Abigail). I have never read seriously about Transcendentalism because so many Transcendentalists strike me as fools. Bronson Alcott has always been and remains Exhibit 1, but I know other people find them very sympathetic. This has introduced me to some Transcendentalists that I can truly admire -- the ones who devoted themselves to social good. I don't know if that is really the result of the Transcendentalism, since many people at the time were striving for the same goals and were not Transcendentalists, while some Transcendentalists couldn't have cared less.
By page 10, I knew that Transcendentalism would never have any meaning for me -- I have no patience with Idealism. The Transcendentalists also seem to be naïve realists in the psychological sense, that is convinced that they are reasonable people of good understanding, and that all reasonable people with naturally agree with them, once they have explained their point of view. I'm also an atheist, so much of the religious thought is meaningless to me. There is one thing that I have noted -- people changing traditional religions, to make them more liberal, more current, etc., never seem to consider that other people might not accept their changes as valid. If religion is evolving, how do we know, who, if anyone is right about the trajectory? I know a New Testament professor whose religious beliefs remind me of the discussions here. I believe that he is reconciling his traditional Christian upbringing (heart) with his studies (head). They are deeply satisfying to him; he believes in an impersonal deity who does not perform miracles, listen to or answer prayers, confer eternal life, etc.; but has a demanding code of behavior that makes Jesus look indulgent, that I find obnoxious. God isn't a being, but Being Itself. Jesus is a wholly human prophet of the Ineffable They. I'm glad he's happy, but I don't think that I would bother worshiping such a deity even if he convinced me that the Ineffable They existed. He clearly wasn't satisfied with conventional religious beliefs, but would everyone who does believe that their deity listens to prayers, loves everyone individually, and grants eternal life think that unresponsive Being Itself is attractive? He certainly wouldn't care to imagine why not; to him, it is obvious that the Ineffable They exists, and he has trouble imagining that this is not obvious to everyone. He knew that I am an atheist, but for all his Greek, he was stunned to learn that I mean that I don't believe in any deities, not that I just don't go to church.
I also wondered about the analysis of the Bible: Gura tells us that Joseph Buckminster observed '"to understand the unconnected writings of any person, written in a remote period, and in a foreign language,' [one had to consider] 'the character of the writer, the opinions that prevailed in his time, his object in writing, and every circumstance peculiar to his situation.'" I won't argue with that, but how does one get that information, especially for an unknown writer of an undated work? A Jane Austen scholar told her audience of Janeites that much as we all enjoyed her works, we can never fully understand all of her references to things peculiar to her time, and we have originals from only two hundred years ago. One often does not have an original manuscript, but a copy, possibly of a copy, (of a copy, of a copy) that may have been created centuries later with emendations, interpolations, and mistakes. Even if changes were made in good faith, did the copyist(s) have all the above information that Buckminster requires?
Then there's James Marsh, who wanted to interpret ancient writings "intuitively" and "imaginatively." It also seems to me, and certainly is true of the professor that I mentioned in the previous paragraph, believers of all stripes have always done that, focusing on the parts of their scriptures that they like and ignoring or reinterpreting those that they don't , even if they offer no scholarly reason for the difference. I suppose that is why people like Emerson believed in internal proofs, but I don't, given their variations, or rely on the "general sense" of the scriptures, as if interpretations of that were consistent.
It is still an important piece of American history, and I am very glad that I read this. I highly recommend it to anyone with any interest in the subject.… (mais)