![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The library is vast. Millions upon millions of books and other media. But if you emabark on any academic study you will be told "You can only examine and reference what's in this section over here- and if you wander off and read other things and take them seriously we will refuse to publish what you write and if your trespassing becomes too egregious you'll be out of a job".
I studied theology at Cambridge. The section of the library I was permitted to consult contained 19th and 20th century writers in the Protestant tradition- most of whom have no reputation outside their field. Ever heard of Karl Barth? No, I thought not. And don't bother to go looking for him because he's frightfully dull.....
One quickly learned that it would be bloody silly to quote the Buddha, or Madame Blavatsky or G.K Chesterton or even someone irreproachably Anglican but a little off piste like Charles Williams. For the purpose of the discipline we were committed to they didn't exist.
All this came back to me last night as I listened to a lecture by an academic who was referencing Dostoevsky and Nietzsche and Hannah Arendt and I thought- yeah, you're a world literature guy with a sideline in modern philosophy- and that's your whole world- or at least the only world your colleagues consider it respectable for you to talk about- but haven't you ever considered it a bit screwy to be telling us about the modern world and- even more presumptuously- to prophesy the future when all the people you turn to for back-up have been dead for years and years and years...?
I studied theology at Cambridge. The section of the library I was permitted to consult contained 19th and 20th century writers in the Protestant tradition- most of whom have no reputation outside their field. Ever heard of Karl Barth? No, I thought not. And don't bother to go looking for him because he's frightfully dull.....
One quickly learned that it would be bloody silly to quote the Buddha, or Madame Blavatsky or G.K Chesterton or even someone irreproachably Anglican but a little off piste like Charles Williams. For the purpose of the discipline we were committed to they didn't exist.
All this came back to me last night as I listened to a lecture by an academic who was referencing Dostoevsky and Nietzsche and Hannah Arendt and I thought- yeah, you're a world literature guy with a sideline in modern philosophy- and that's your whole world- or at least the only world your colleagues consider it respectable for you to talk about- but haven't you ever considered it a bit screwy to be telling us about the modern world and- even more presumptuously- to prophesy the future when all the people you turn to for back-up have been dead for years and years and years...?
