Comments on: Hart’s bizarre thoughtlessness regarding pacifism

By: Chris Donato

Chris Donato — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:51:11 +0000

Peruse his recent Atheist Delusions for some real polemic. Can't really judge whether or not he excludes intellectual charity, though, since I'm not all that familiar with the folks he engages throughout it. There are some borderline mean-spirited zingers in there. I kind of enjoyed his "Christ and Nothing," but especially his "Tsunami and Theodicy."

By: Brian Hamilton

Brian Hamilton — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:01:48 +0000

I really don’t think that polemic by definition excludes intellectual charity, though it’s impossible to deny that, as a matter of fact, it usually does. Part of the reason I enjoy Hart, though, is that his polemic usually is against real figures and real argument, rather than stupid strawmen. The pacifism he dismisses is a stupid strawman, which is why it struck me as bizarre (a word that, though strong and somewhat polemical, I meant sympathetically!). It’s just a bit of evidence that whereas his critiques of Heidegger or Nietzsche are born of a long, even sympathetic struggle with their thought, Yoder has very obviously never merited that same level of attention for him.

To the last question, as to whether he’s less polemical in his more sustained pieces, the answer is a clear no. He just is a polemicist. I have detected, though, a fairly explicit attempt to respond to the accusations of mean-spiritedness in his more recent work.

By: Faith and Theology: Twenty-nine days of sinning and forty to repent

Faith and Theology: Twenty-nine days of sinning and forty to repent — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:14:13 +0000

[…] N. Wilson believes againAn interview with Robert JensonA critique of David Bentley Hart on pacifismA new edition of Calvin’s 1541 French InstitutesA Times Higher Education piece on Milbank and […]

By: Spencer

Spencer — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:04:43 +0000

Hart’s blunder illustrates the inherent problem with his favorite rhetorical strategy (at least in the articles I’ve read): polemic. Polemic, almost by definition, does not seek to understand the opponent in a sympathetic mode, and so is prone to caricatures and generalizations that have an unclear relationship to actual, particular realities. The article on “Christ and Nothing” especially illustrates this latter tendency, as Hart himself notes several times through the article. For rhetorical force, Hart can’t be beat, but intellectual charity is a virtue which I have not seen deployed much in the work of his I’ve read. Perhaps this is just an unfortunate side-effect of the form of the short essay. Is he less polemical in his more sustained pieces?

By: Chris Green

Chris Green — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:59:18 +0000

This is bizarre. I like Hart’s work, but it does sometimes veer into inexplicabilities! For all his brilliance, it seems he often treats his interlocutors dismissively. But I’m guilty of this, too.

I wonder how he would defend himself?

By: Around the traps… « Per Crucem ad Lucem

Around the traps… « Per Crucem ad Lucem — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:47:31 +0000

[…] David Bentley Hart’s bizarre thoughtlessness regarding pacifism by Brian Hamilton. Dave Belcher also posts on David Bentley Hart. […]

By: Brian Hamilton

Brian Hamilton — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:34:16 +0000

One could add a further inaccuracy regarding Hart’s reading of realism: Niebuhr’s word for “a secure and just social order” is not in any very full sense “peace,” but “relative justice.” If he does call it peace, it’s only in a provisional and self-consciously inadequate way. Presumably the orthodox traditions could comfortably use these terms in exactly the same way.