<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: interesante intercambio de ideas
Review: EN QUE CREEN LOS QUE NO CREENUMBERTO ECO Y CARLO MARIA MARTINI Este pequeño intercambio de ideas entre estas dos grandes figuras es un excelente ejercicio literario, filosófico e ideológico de carácter muy profundo y ha sido un libro de un gran impacto en mi vida. Tenia tiempo que no leía una obra que me pusiera a pensar y repensar en los valores de la sociedad moderna y el papel de la iglesia y los laicos. Debo decir que después de este libro veo las instituciones religiosas y sus creyentes con mucho mas respeto que antes. Los veo a la luz de los errores pasados, pero también los veo en su función de reformar y reformarse, en una constante búsqueda de la verdad que parece eludirnos pero veo que lentamente el germen de la tolerancia, la comprensión y el amor hacia ese otro que es un alter ego esta ganando terreno. Respecto a la pregunta de Martini en la que no se explica sobre que basa la certeza y la imperatividad de su actuar moral quien, para fundar la cualidad de absoluto de una ética, no pretende hacer un llamado a principios metafísicos, es decir no busca de Dios a la hora de hacer el bien, encuentra en Eco una respuesta contundente y posmodernista en que los individuos dependemos de la aceptación del otro para poder vivir y es esa cohesión de hechos la que nos hace no lastimar a los demás y es también la razón que lleva a los filósofos a filosofar, a los escritores a escribir; dejar un mensaje para los otros en un futuro para que sepan y vean lo que consideramos bello en nuestro tiempo y un poco de nosostos en esas cosas. Dios existe porque necesitamos que exista ese padre, esa figura que significa protección en un mundo donde hasta el momento estamos solos. Los no creyentes y los creyentes debemos respetarnos y aprender a encontrar puntos de consenso, para conservar nuestra raza y mantener viva a nuestra madre, Gea. Luis Mendez
Rating:
Summary: Civil Conversation About Religion, Let?s Have More Of It
Review: In an age where civil conversation is at a minimum (where talking heads on TV interrupt and shout each other down, where the late Cardinal Bernadine's attempt to find common ground among polarized Catholics was rebuffed by other American Cardinals), how refreshing to see this interchange between a secularist writer and the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan on the topics of hope, the beginnings of life, the ordination of women and the secular basis of ethics. They are both mutually respectful and intellectual people open to hear another point of view. The idea and the example are both great and ought to be repeated elsewhere. If anything the book is too polite and far too short. There are hundreds of issues to be discussed and a little further give and take would be more enlightening. It is not really a confrontation, and there is only one go-around on each issue. The writers are courteous to a fault. Eco knows and presents the Catholic sided as if he were on it, and in reality he is not so much skeptical as merely incredulous about a number of things, a kind of crypto-Catholic. Both are capable of giving and taking a lot more pointed argumentation while still maintaining their mutual respect and amity.
Rating:
Summary: a beautiful book to comfort us all
Review: In these beautifully crafted, philosophical yet clear letters, Cardinal Martini and Umberto Eco discuss the questions that have been raised by many peoples in many lands and in many cultures since philosophy began. They exchange views on the secular expectation of the apocalypse and our resultant consumer culture; on women in the church; on when life begins; and on how a secular man can ground his ethics. The thorough Jesuit education these great minds received is as evident as their deep humanity. And, while a student of philosophy and ethics will no doubt be entranced by the clear and logical arguments Eco and Martini present, a less philosophically inclined mind may find comfort. For in the end, Martini and Eco reassure us that, no matter whether you are secular or religious; no matter what your culture, there are universal values that are common to us all. It is a message well worth hearing in this relativistic and politically correct world.
Rating: 
Summary: Clear questions, not so clear answers.
Review: In this small volume two of the best-known minds of Italy exchange letters trying to find a common ground and to clarify differences between the secular and religious worldviews. On the one hand we have Umberto Eco, an academic philosopher best known for his novel "The Name of the Rose", and on the other hand Cardinal Martini, one of the most intellectually gifted princes of the Catholic church. The format is questions and answers; Eco gets the first three questions, Martini the last one. In general I found the questions illuminating; they are clearly stated and challenge the other party to clarify its position. Neither Eco nor Martini give resounding answers though, and reading between the lines one feels a certain unease in both. Eco's first question is not really a question but rather a commentary on the secular and religious ideas about history and the end of history. Both agree that history has meaning and direction and that the fears about a disastrous end can be vanquished by hope. The other three questions are ethical and are much more interesting. After a short and delightful investigation about what human life is, Eco asks about abortion, and specifically about when human life begins. Martini explains that there are different kinds of human life and that the kind that counts is not physical life but rather spiritual life which is part of God's life. Being a cardinal, he cannot but answer Eco's question with the Church's official position, which is that human life begins at inception. He reasons that this is so because at the inception a person's genetic identity is fixed. To me this argument sounds rather superficial. After all a seed fixes the identity of the tree that may grow out of it, but that does not mean that the seed is a living tree. Surely, if, while eating an apple, I inadvertently swallow a seed, nobody will claim that I have just eaten an apple tree. To be fair, Martini is only stating that human life starts at inception, not that a fertilized human egg is a human being. But in this case then we get the equally strange claim that human life is present in something that is not a human being. The third of Eco's questions is about the ordination of women. He argues that there are not really any dogmatic impediments for women becoming priests and, also, that common sense dictates that half of humanity should not be excluded from serving God in any capacity. Martini's answer here is very problematic. He starts on a fine note stating that we should not impose our morality on others: "Any external imposition of principles or religious behavior on the nonconsenting violates freedom of conscience." Exactly two paragraphs later he contradicts himself writing that "religious bodies can try to democratically influence the tenor of laws they find do not correspond to an ethical standard that might indeed derive from religious practice". He concedes that ultimately there are no good arguments for denying the priesthood to women, but that nevertheless this must be denied them because it is God's will, according to the opinion of those "who by Episcopal succession have received the power of truth". The fourth and final question is Martini's, and now I think it is Eco's answer that sounds strained. Martini asks what the foundation is for an atheist's moral principles, up to documented extremes where atheists gave up their lives trying to do what they thought right. Implicitly in this question one reads the presumption that the foundation of morality can only be a transcendent religious awareness. Eco starts, interestingly enough, explaining that there can be no true atheists because even though nobody has found a convincing proof for the existence of God, neither has anybody found a convincing proof for the nonexistence of God. He responds to Martini's question explaining that moral ideology is a result of the requirements of our cohabitation in close proximity. He recognizes that this standard explanation for morality does not explain the phenomenon of secular people offering a personal sacrifice comparable to that of Christ, so he ventures that the reason here is that people have a deep need to give a good example, to leave a message to others, sometimes even if it costs their life. He does not explain how this instinctive need to communicate good has evolved with human life and culture, so he is merely transforming the original question into a different one. Ultimately, Eco and Martini do not really connect, and it would be too much to expect such a miracle. I think that the religious and secular world views can only touch and derive worth from each other if each side abandons beliefs that are deeply felt but not really central to the respective world views. Secular people should stop talking about "meaningful life", "universal harmony", a "higher power", or "the other" and simply give it a name and call it God. Religious people should recognize that the origin of truth is not in books of revelations or leaders who "have received the power of truth" but God alone with no intermediaries. When secular people accept that truth comes from somewhere, and religious people accept that where truth comes from we can go ourselves, then the foundations of a very meaningful dialectic will have been set. One star less than the deserving five, because the English edition omits the commentaries by several other authors which were included in the original edition.
Rating:
Summary: Too short!
Review: While I appreciate the sentiments of the two participants, and I enjoyed the dialog, the problem with these kinds of interactions is that almost nobody will be swayed but the other side. Each side has its own beliefs, and the conversation amounts to explaining to each other what that entails. I do think that this is important, but the recent spate of books trying to get everyone to see each others side is a little tiresome. This is especially true in the science world. The last chapter was the only one that had any real confrontation, and unfortunately it was the last correspondence. The plesant tone that each side took however was refreshing. It was a very cordial discourse, it only needed to last a few hundred more pages before it got really interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Too short!
Review: While I appreciate the sentiments of the two participants, and I enjoyed the dialog, the problem with these kinds of interactions is that almost nobody will be swayed but the other side. Each side has its own beliefs, and the conversation amounts to explaining to each other what that entails. I do think that this is important, but the recent spate of books trying to get everyone to see each others side is a little tiresome. This is especially true in the science world. The last chapter was the only one that had any real confrontation, and unfortunately it was the last correspondence. The plesant tone that each side took however was refreshing. It was a very cordial discourse, it only needed to last a few hundred more pages before it got really interesting.
<< 1 >>
| 
