Hey guys!
So as Dr. Huber mentioned in class today, there was a participation event at 5:00 in our regular classroom. It was a panel comprised of 5 speakers that reacted to a Professor's (by the name of Geoffrey Claussen) ideas expressed on Simhah Zissel in a Christian Ethics literary work. Unfortunately, I was unable to stay the entire time as I had other obligations this evening, but I was able to fully listen to 3 speakers. If you are interested in learning more about the event, please speak with myself or Dr. Huber.
The first panelist referred to a handout put together by Dr. Christian Miller from WFU. The handout was divided into two parts on Simhah Zissel: on Human Nature and on Empathy and Love. These are two different readings of Zissel's views about the moral quality of human beings. Regarding Human Nature (I am not going to go too far in depth) there is an extreme view that says Zissel holds that human nature is evil, through and through as well as a mixed view that states Zissel holds that humans are partly angelic and partly base. Each of these views has quotes from Claussen, and examples of possible contradictions to these statements. In the end the panelist questions if humans have two different nature and a charitable answer with an evaluation. For Empathy and Love, there are 2 questions; the first (What should be our central aim as we try to move beyond our mixed characters and become people of virtue?) has an answer from Zissel (the features of love) and the 2nd question (In light of the experimental work that has been done in recent decades, is it psychologically realistic to think that such love actually exists in the first place?) has an answer from the panelist, along with a statement on empathy and helping, supported by a study. The panelist concludes that the Musar Movement or path is a path that people who are religious would be wise to explore.
The following panelist further responded to Professor Clausin's literary work. This panelist described Zissel much throughout her response. She (the panelist) claimed that Zissel aspired to be philosophical, and to reach a large audience. To support this, she claimed that Zissel looked to Socrates as an admirable figure; she even does a brief comparison of Moses to Socrates. With regards to religion, she claimed that Zissel supported faith, and that Zissel views the love of God as loving one's fellow. Furthermore, the panelist said that Zissel's advocating of God displays the desire to expand love, believing that love should be a virtue. The panelist later describes Zissel as someone who does not fit in to the culture Zissel was raised, concluding by saying how Claussen's book expanded Jewish learning. The only thing I did not like about this panelist is that she talked incredibly fast and it was difficult for me to write everything I wanted to!
The third and final panelist that I was able to listen to also had a lengthy response to Professor Clausin's literary work. They mostly talked about reason and rational. For example, they discussed how reason allows us to see things hidden from us, and that people should give themselves divind reason, allowing our inner world to become our external world. He (the panelist) also stated how rational and moral perfections is buried within the human soul, and that people shape themselves in accordance with the will of God. Furthermore, he believes that reason allows us to justify our own desires, and that we are able to expand our nature by reasoning. Should one abuse their moral imagination, they can transform the terms of a conversation. The panelist concluded by expressing how love is not a feeling; rather, it is a decision that humans make.
There was much discussed in each of these speaker's responses, but if you would like to share your thoughts based on my observations, please comment below. Thanks!
I also went to the panel, and I appreciate the detailed notes you posted; I think you succinctly summed up the basic arguments of each of the panelists, which was nice for me to read when I was reviewing what I had learned. Thanks for posting!
ReplyDeleteI had never been to a panel such as this event before, so I was really interested by the format. I thought it was cool to see professors from a variety of religious and scholarly backgrounds discussing Dr. Claussen's book. In one of our first classes, we talked about how the Christian tradition developed and was in constant conversation over time. I think a similar idea was present here, both in Claussen's writing and interpretation of Zissel's work, but also in how the scholars responded. It is a good example of how the Religious Studies field (and beyond!) is constantly in dialogue with different ideas and scholars.
Melina's right, these are detailed and good notes.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Melina, I think you're on to something with the image of conversation over time.