Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spengler Essay Refused; Now Spengler Forum Is Down
The Asia Times ^ | 2006-10-17 | "Spengler"

Posted on 10/17/2006 9:40:03 AM PDT by BubbaHeel

Yesterday, the Asia Times rejected Spengler's latest essay [which argued that the very idea of "Reason" was fundamentally incompatible with the competing idea of Islam as a religion revealed to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel], so Spengler posted the essay on his forum:

My Monday essay, refused by AToL
http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?t=1744
Now today the forum is off-line:
Sorry, but this board is currently unavailable. Please try again later.
So anyone got any contacts at the Asia Times?

Anyone know what's going on?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 10/17/2006 9:40:05 AM PDT by BubbaHeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BubbaHeel
Anyone know what's going on?

AsiaTimes is concerned about the possible reactions of the adherents of a certain 'religion'?

2 posted on 10/17/2006 9:46:55 AM PDT by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: siunevada; KayEyeDoubleDee
AsiaTimes is concerned about the possible reactions of the adherents of a certain 'religion'?

I think it's a combination of that sort of cowardice, and rank political correctness.

A while back, Spengler had another one of his essays published "under objection" - where the ATimes editor added a comment that Spengler's views did not reflect the views of the ATimes, blah blah blah.

But this time I think there may have been a perfect storm of political correctness and cowardice at the ATimes, and I'm wondering if we've seen the last of Spengler's work over there...

3 posted on 10/17/2006 9:50:18 AM PDT by BubbaHeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BubbaHeel
Would anyone happen to know where I could find a copy of the essay? Anything that would tick of the muslims to this degree is, IMO, required reading.
4 posted on 10/17/2006 9:54:55 AM PDT by Sergio (If a tree fell on a mime in the forest, would he make a sound?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sergio
Would anyone happen to know where I could find a copy of the essay? Anything that would tick of the muslims to this degree is, IMO, required reading.

I'm afraid that I overwrote the file in my computer's cache, and neither Google nor Yahoo seems to have spidered it before it was removed.

If someone here is a regular at Spengler's forum, then you would have a copy of it in your cache, in a subdirectory of the directory that looks something like

C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\
Within one of those subdirectories, it will be a file called something like "viewtopic[1].htm" or "viewtopic[2].htm" etc.

But if you visit the page today, then you'll overwrite that good cached copy with the new, bad copy.

5 posted on 10/17/2006 10:08:19 AM PDT by BubbaHeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: BubbaHeel

In case anyone's wondering, there's no relation.


7 posted on 10/17/2006 10:32:08 AM PDT by Egon (I stand beside you as your partner, in front as your defender, behind as... hey! nice butt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ozone34

Thanks, I believe that was it!


8 posted on 10/17/2006 10:35:57 AM PDT by BubbaHeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BubbaHeel

Interesting post. Actually, having read Spengler's original, rejected article, I have some bones to pick with it.

Spengler actually represents the other half of the problem that Pope Benedict was criticizing. He criticised religion without reason, and reason without religion. The problem in the West is that science and religion went their separate ways in the Renaissance and Reformation. The problem with Islam is that there simply is no place for rationality at all.

The Christian view is that human reason and rational order in the universe are a result of the way God created the universe. Particularly important is the idea of the Logos (Gospel of John, chapter 1).

I might say the same thing about Socrates. People differ about him, but Socrates was not merely IRONIC, as Spenger suggets. Socrates, like Plato, believed that at the highest levels, truth, beauty, and goodness converge. Socrates pursued truth, and he used the Socratic dialogue to clear away obstructions of the truth, not to deny that objective truth exists, which is the modernist position.

Similarly, there is much that is false and unscientific in modern "Scientific Bible Criticism." This movement can be traced back to Bismarck and his Kulturkampf, circa 1870. The first Professor of Modern Bible Studies in Germany was a Bismarck appointee, and his appointment was political, with an agenda.

Complicated matters. But Spengler completely misunderstands the issues at stake in Benedict's challenge.


9 posted on 10/17/2006 11:59:47 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ozone34

All heuristics shows me is that there are more ideas than beans.


10 posted on 10/17/2006 12:10:05 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Spengler actually represents the other half of the problem that Pope Benedict was criticizing. He criticised religion without reason, and reason without religion. The problem in the West is that science and religion went their separate ways in the Renaissance and Reformation. The problem with Islam is that there simply is no place for rationality at all.

The Christian view is that human reason and rational order in the universe are a result of the way God created the universe.

Are you trying to draw a distinction between "Reason" and "Rationality", and, if so, then what is the technical definition of "Reason", and what is the technical definition of "Rationality"?

11 posted on 10/17/2006 12:41:49 PM PDT by BubbaHeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BubbaHeel

I think its a well founded fear. The Pope makes mention of something someone SAID about Islam in the 1600's and he gets death threats.

France feeds, clothes, houses, and generally bows before Muslims there, and 350 of their cities burned this summer.


12 posted on 10/17/2006 12:44:41 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BubbaHeel

No, I'm not distinguishing between reason and rationality. I'm distinguishing between reason or rationality as it was understood by classical and Christian philosophers in the tradition of philosophical realism, and as it is understood by modern materialists and pragmatists in the nominalist tradition.

This is not knocking science as such, but rather those who try to make science or pseudo-science into a sort of religion.

Spengler seems to think that Islam needs to develop some sort of scientific Qran criticism that corresponds with so-called Scientific Bible Criticism. But I have spent quite a lot of time reading up on the various schools of Bible criticism, and much of it is merely pseudo-science that does not stand up to critical scrutiny. For instance, I had a colleague at NYU who actually wrote his dissertation on the "Book of Q," a manuscript posited by Bible scholars who want to believe that the Gospel of Luke was written earlier than Matthew. Such a manuscript is necessary to explain discrepancies in the theory. The only problem is that no such manuscript exists.

Science I have no objection to, but there is a difference between real science and science as a self-appropriated label.

The Jesus Seminar is a good example of what I mean, now largely discredited.


13 posted on 10/17/2006 1:10:10 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BubbaHeel

P.S. Although I think Spengler is confused about what the Pope meant by bringing reason together with religion, I quite agree with you that it was wrong and cowardly of Asia Times to censor his column and website. He is out of his depth here on the philosophical background, but his columns are often excellent. Although I disagree with this column, he certainly had a right to express his opinion, which is far more reasonable than the Muslims he criticizes.


14 posted on 10/17/2006 1:14:54 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Recently I read a review of some writings of Etienne Gilson in which he credited the late 13th century Averroeist scholastics with introducing the basic notions that led directly to nominalism in the 14th century, and later Descarte's separation of mind and body, and subsequent modern errors. It's ironic that the Muslim assumptions of varying separate levels of knowledge and individual capacities to attain knowledge could have infected Western thought right at that time and have resulted in the modernist/postmodernist mindsight that is now so helpless to deal with the Islamist threats.


15 posted on 10/17/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by Ozone34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ozone34

Thanks for getting the article.

I have not always agreed with Spengler, but few others follow the rationale of their own ideas, and the ideas of others with as much depth as Spengler.


16 posted on 10/17/2006 2:29:07 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ozone34

Pardon, but the article offered looks exactly like the one Asia Times has on its site today: http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HJ18Aa01.html.

What is the difference?


17 posted on 10/17/2006 7:43:30 PM PDT by Rosinante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rosinante

Why are you asking?


18 posted on 10/17/2006 8:07:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rosinante; Ozone34; Egon; Sergio; siunevada; Cicero; Old Professer; RinaseaofDs; Wuli; ...
Thanks; the correct URL is
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HJ18Aa01.html
Looks like the Asia Times editorial staff backed down, and Spengler's forum is back up, as well.

It'll be interesting to see whether there are any differences between the official, published version, and the cached version that Ozone34 posted above.

19 posted on 10/18/2006 6:21:26 AM PDT by BubbaHeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rosinante
I read the original and the only difference I noticed was in the following text:

"Much of what is incomprehensible in Arabic makes good sense if one reads the text instead in Syriac, the liturgical language of pre-existing Christian communities in the Middle East, according to "Christoph Luxenburg"; "

In the original, if I recall correctly, Spengler goes on to give the example of an Arabic word translating as "Virgin" but the same word in Syriac translates as "Raisin". Apparently there is disagreement about whether a suicide bomber can expect 72 virgins in paradise or 72 raisins.

Could this be what the ATOL editors had a problem with?

Anyone notice any other differences?
20 posted on 10/18/2006 7:11:04 AM PDT by justapleeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson