« Death Solves All Problems | Main | Seven »

April 11, 2005


Adam Kotsko

Jared Woodard had a great letter to the editor in response to the First Things piece -- the condescension is my main objection, but his exposition in itself is basically fine. Clearly he has read the texts attentively.

I may come back later and try my hand at that last paragraph. The last couple sentences make sense to me, but the first parts are more difficult to understand, so maybe I'm not understanding the end as well either.


That's a damn long article so forgive me for not reading it, but as I understand the part you quote (plus the sentence immediately preceding), the meaning is this.

Let's seek out all the ways in which theological thought has become a part of our political thought. But let's not do it just so to claim that political thinkers are deluded or arguing in bad faith, nor, conversely, so as to claim vindication for theology as prior to and fundamental to politics. Rather, let's do it because we can't get a clear view of theology anymore unless we understand the ways in which it's become part of our political thought (theology is hiding in politics, let's find it). But let's not assume that tracing our political thought back to theology means that theology is the first, originary thought. The terms and concepts of theology might themselves have a non-theological history.

Adam Kotsko

Sounds good to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Email John & Belle

  • he.jpgjholbo-at-mac-dot-com
  • she.jpgbbwaring-at-yahoo-dot-com

Google J&B

J&B Archives

Buy Reason and Persuasion!

S&O @ J&B

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing items in a set called Squid and Owl. Make your own badge here.

Reason and Persuasion Illustrations

  • www.flickr.com

J&B Have A Tipjar

  • Search Now:

  • Buy a couple books, we get a couple bucks.
Blog powered by Typepad

J&B Have A Comment Policy

  • This edited version of our comment policy is effective as of May 10, 2006.

    By publishing a comment to this blog you are granting its proprietors, John Holbo and Belle Waring, the right to republish that comment in any way shape or form they see fit.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you hereby agree to the following as well: by leaving a comment you grant to the proprietors the right to release ALL your comments to this blog under this Creative Commons license (attribution 2.5). This license allows copying, derivative works, and commercial use.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you are also granting to this blog's proprietors the right to so release any and all comments you may make to any OTHER blog at any time. This is retroactive. By publishing ANY comment to this blog, you thereby grant to the proprietors of this blog the right to release any of your comments (made to any blog, at any time, past, present or future) under the terms of the above CC license.

    Posting a comment constitutes consent to the following choice of law and choice of venue governing any disputes arising under this licensing arrangement: such disputes shall be adjudicated according to Canadian law and in the courts of Singapore.

    If you do NOT agree to these terms, for pete's sake do NOT leave a comment. It's that simple.

  • Confused by our comment policy?

    We're testing a strong CC license as a form of troll repellant. Does that sound strange? Read this thread. (I know, it's long. Keep scrolling. Further. Further. Ah, there.) So basically, we figure trolls will recognize that selling coffee cups and t-shirts is the best revenge, and will keep away. If we're wrong about that, at least someone can still sell the cups and shirts. (Sigh.)