I too liked our discussion on messiahs and vocations. I think it's okay that we couldn't come up with one definition of a messiah because in this case, a bit of relativity is okay I think. Messiahs can be different things, just as revolutionaries can. Maybe messiahs are just revolutionaries with a religious aura around them. I do think that though messiahs who die can be called martyrs not every martyr is a possible messiah. The number of saints alone in the Roman Catholic canon who are martyrs would mean that the second coming was a lot sooner than it apparently will be, or something like that. Maybe Count Fenring could be called a martyr (sorta), in that he was a possibility but couldn't quite get there, whereas Paul did. For my part, I think that Paul was the Fremen's messiah and that mystic feeling about him obviously spread, given Irulan's commentaries. Though she could have tempered her writing based on those around her and the fear of retribution...hmm...I don't think we've considered that yet.
As for Weber, I think he was looking to impress upon the students the importance of history and keeping one's eyes open-to be pragmatic and reasonable. Learn from the past, be slightly optimistic but very practical about the future, and try not to screw up the present. Oh, and guess what? Weber's thing about politics being "a slow, powerful drilling through hard boards" (93) was totally quoted and explained in an episode of West Wing, "Privateers" as a matter of fact. So he gets around.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree mostly with your take on Weber- he does caution very strongly against optimism, mostly because the time when this was given (after Germany had lost WWI). If I may try to refine what you describe, I feel like Weber was trying to tell the students that politics will only be useful if they acknowledge that no one event or policy will change life for the better, and that the combination of events that do improve life will take a while. So in a sense, he was trying to instill both patience in those would feel up to the challenge, as well as fear in those who are entering politics for the wrong reasons(according to Weber): on the basis of the ethics of conviction, i.e. "this is the right thing to do" but unable to take responsibility if their policies go horribly wrong. Thats how I understood it, at least.
-Mike
Post a Comment