I've been randomly dipping into some ethics over the past few weeks, in the form of the Hauerwas Reader and O'Donovans New College lectures.
I have some thoughts on their perception of time. Just a vibe, and not particularly thought through, but hey, thats what blogs are for.
O'Donovan seems to portray ethics as acting into a very proximate future, that is, all action is taken up in the moment attached to the present. That is the only future we have available to us. The reality that conditions that action and gives it meaning for christians can lie a long way in the past (ie the resurrection of Jesus).
Hauerwas seems to go the other way. The reality that conditions the meaning of our action is a proximate past, in the form of the traditions and practices given to us by our community. The action christians take is into a distant, eschatological future (even if we describe this future as breaking in now, it is still distant in its hiddeness).
Would those who know far better care to correect my muddled thoughts?
Suggested books for students
1 hour ago
2 comments:
this is interesting. I need to read more so I can chat about it with you.
Interesting. I've had a similar thought about O'D (at least insofar as the proximate future seems more important (or at least important in a different way) than the eschatological future), though hadn't thought of reversing this to obtain Hauerwas's position. As a rough guide, it is helpful. (Of course Hauerwas will still want to say something about the proximate future and Christic-past and O'D has a place for tradition and eschatology).
Post a Comment