The lost Gift of Friendship
If you've been over at Gagdad's place, and I know you have, you've likely read about the essay in First Things talking about the social construct of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy and it's invalidity. The writer has stripped away the narrative that has influenced the western world for over a century now and has breathed a good dose of Classic Christian logic into the discussion.
If you haven't read it yet, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.
Against Heterosexuality
I'll admit that I had to slow down and reread parts of it to grasp what he's saying but found it very worth while.
And if that's not enough to give you a fresh look on the subject (and if you have another 20 minutes to invest) here is another great essay along the same thoughts.
Friendship
If read some comments at One Cosmos and would love to read your further thoughts on the subject.
For myself, my understanding is still growing. The more I learn about Church history and Medieval thought the more I appreciate what has gone before us and question much about the narrative I grew up under. My thinking kind of coincides with my understanding of Plato. Several years ago I became interested in his writings and read several of his works. The one that most sticks in my mind is the Symposium. The first time I read it, I'll have to admit, I thought, "these guys are all gay". But, I couldn't reject out of hand the other brilliant insights into love and beauty that are put forth. Socrates, as usual has the last and best word on the subject and after rereading it a few times I began to realize that Socrates did not participate in the pederasty of his companions. He was indeed Socrates the chaste and gave us the idea of "Platonic relationships". It's impossible to say if he approved of their actions or not (I tend to think he did). Though he didn't condemn the actions of his companions, he did show them the higher thing they were really searching for.
I understand where Hannon was coming from, as I said, but the Esolen article is much more accessible to me. Thank you and Joan for both.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Shroom. Hannon makes an excellent argument but, I had to slow down and reread it to get it. And yes, Esolen is much clearer and very poignant.
DeleteYes, what Mushroom said. I linked the Esolen article in today's post; it has been very well received, indeed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's good to have a little in house debate. Much better for everyone than arguing with trolls :)
I'm a very slow reader, so I tackled the Esolen article. Very illuminating. Put to words some hunches I've been carrying around for quite awhile.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up in the 60s and 70s I suppose we were living in the transition phase. I like just about everyone else I knew had strong male friendships and sexuality never came up. Either we were too young and innocent or later there was a shared derision for same-sex relationships.
I just figured the loss of strong male relationships was what one accepted as they grew older because of the assumed sexuality from a jaded society.
I was not aware that these jaded assumptions were the product of the sexual revolution -which I am seeing has been a great ruination for us.
I also liked the idea of the loss of strong male bonds owing to the loss of man's work, mining, logging, farming, building big things.
Thanks for posting.
John, you sound like my brother from another mother.
Delete