Tyler Williams has a very well-done post regarding the Maximalist-Minimalist "issue"; it can be found here ...
"The first step would be to be up front about our lower-level commitments. We need to be clear about our method and our metaphysics."
Yes. I agree whole-heartedly. A thought occurs to me, (which is perhaps completely at odds with Tyler's intent as I understand it), that clarity might be served by the adoption of an even more descriptive labeling than the rather 'polarized' M/M being used right now? (egads... this might be a can of worms.)
Perhaps the current distortions (and the wasted time and unnecessary slights and hard-feelings) caused by the simplistic "Maximalist/Minimalist" paradigm could be minimized (Ha! Should I use that term here?) by replacing it with something more complex. Like this.
But then again, such a move might spawn a cumbersome and confusing jungle of labels or 'schools' of thought, etc. (such as found in philosophy), that could actually cause more obscurity than clarity.
In spite of the possible can-o-worms that this might open up, I can't help but feel that personally, I would rather spend my time discussing the topics and questions that I find fascinating, and do this with people who are somewhat sympathetic to my viewpoints and persepctive.
Not that I do not respect the opinions of others who do not see things my way, nor do I seek to avoid discussing things with them.
But often one ends up slogging through a discussion that devolves into an argument over fundamental assumptions and obscure points only tangential to one's primary interests. Some way to avoid this could be valuable.
If two people can determine quickly that they do not see eye-to-eye on some fundamental levels, then much time can be saved: they will know what topics to avoid, or they can quickly zero-in on the real 'meat' of their differences.
Also, two people with similar fundamental assumptions can recognize each other as such, and discuss the points they find interesting.
The whole spectrum of differing views can and should be able to coexist and interact in a large, inclusive environment (the 'Big Bibliobloggosphere') that includes and respects all the different viewpoints. Each person could define themselves on a general scale, or even multiple sub-scales... ?
Again, perhaps a can of worms...
Just my musings.
3 comments:
Fair enough, though as I always tell my students, we often learn more from those we disagree with (Iron sharpens iron and all that). What frustrates me is when it seems that people are talking past one another and allowing rhetoric to side-track what could be a productive debate. I recall an essay by Philip Davies in BAR where he argued that there is not much that really seperates the so-called minimalists and maximalists. While I'm not sure there are not some pretty fundamental differences, I think it would be good to be able to identify exactly what they are: differing method, worldview, presuppositions, etc.
This doesn't mean that there won't be times where we just have to agree to disagree -- but even then it can be done in a respectful and courteous manner.
Anywho... thoughtful post!
I guess should comment on your proposed spectrum analysis: Looks intriguing and also like a lot of work! Go for it! :-)
I consider your concern for everyone to maintain a courteous and respectful manner to be important and needed.
...About me being the one to take up such a task of defining the 'spectrum' of opinions within the bible scholarship arena: I think that would be extremely presumptuous. I am very much aware that I am wading into waters that are unfamiliar to me. Quite frankly, it feels like there exists more than a little 'politics' underneath the surface, and perhaps some disingenuousness, too. (But the latter might be attributable to a level of complexity of some people's opinions that I am not familiar with...)
Just curious: How would you, Tyler, start such a task if you were to take it up yourself, or what advice would you give to a person who was taking it up? Do you have any ideas of what should be included or considered?
Post a Comment