Recent discussions of 'agendas' prompted me to look into the etymology of the word.
Really interesting!
In the traditional sense then, Aquinas follows Aristotle in arguing that 'being' (esse – the 'is-ness' of the thing that is) is known and understood by its 'act'; that is, a thing is known and understood by what it is (it's esse), a 'static' understanding – this is a fish, that is a bird – and simultaneously dynamically, by 'how' it is, fishes swim in the sea, birds fly in the air ...
We first apprehend the concrete act-uality of something – a flying thing, a swimming thing, or even a thing that swims and flies! – and then contemplate its is-ness – what is it to be a fish, a bird, a human, etc.
The contemporary understanding of agenda broadens:
In a proper scholarly thesis, the favoured methodology is the dialectical method, which today follows the pattern of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, that is the scholar proposes his or her thesis, then the objections to that thesis (if there are none, then it's a statement of the obvious), then argues the case by reason and logic to arrive at a conclusion, in which the antithesis is refuted or reconciled to the thesis.
Scholarly discussions, and books, tend to be dry, technical affairs, unless the point under discussion happens to be your 'thing'. Thy tend not to sell in any significant numbers – a notable exception being Hawkings' 'A Brief History of Time' which, apparently, is a book which 'everyone' owns, but few have read!
The issue with 'hidden agendas' results from the ancient arts of rhetoric and sophistry, which assumes to speak 'cleverly' and 'emotively' to win an audience to one's point of view is more important than whether that point of view is actually true or correct. Plato had a very low opinion of both. Aristotle was more allowing.
Best sellers, especially in theology, tend towards the latter, employing a more colourful and emotive language and, sadly, a tendency to assert a thesis without paying proper regard to the counter argument. Colour and emotion will always trump technical rigour in the wider marketplace, and people tend to buy the books by authors who endorse their viewpoint, rather than those that subject them to critical scrutiny.
Peer review is the best method we have for a balanced critique of any thesis, in my own experience I was directed to read the critics of my favourite theologians, as well as more of my favourite theologians. By that process one can come to an informed ground.
A classic case is Richard Dawkins.
In "The Blind Watchmaker, he puts forward the thesis of God-as-watchmaker, that God being at the apex of creation, and its creator, must necessarily be more complex than the complexity of living organisms, and then knocks the argument down.
He never deals with the contrary argument that God is not a thing as other things are, and that throughout history God has always been presented as 'One', and 'Simple' and 'Uncompounded'.
So he sets up a false thesis, knocks it down, and everyone applauds him because they never knew that he was thinking about God the wrong way from the very outset. The God Delusion is just more of the same. The only delusion being what Dawkins thinks theists think.
Dawkins' book is quite a doorstop. The response from a Dominican theologian was a little booklet that showed where Dawkins was making an erroneous assumption about the Christian idea of God.
A most telling move on his part was to tour America, promoting The God Delusion, by engaging with born-again evangelical Christians and making them look stupid. As one critic noted, 'it was like shooting fish in a barrel', basically punching someone well below his weight. It's notable he didn't seek out his his intellectual equal.
When he did, he usually came off badly. He launched into one Anglican priest in a discussion on the BBC, ridiculing Christians who declared a Biblical faith but could not name the first five books of the Bible.
His opponent responded by asking Dawkins the full book title (not the chapter titles) of his own 'bible', Charles Darwin's book on evolution ... Dawkins couldn't remember ... hoist on his own petard, as the saying goes.
I don't think Dawkins deliberately sets out to deceive. Nor do I doubt his faith in what he believes. It's just he's quite wrong, and inexcusably so, in telling others what we believe.
As one critic said, 'He's a brilliant biologist, but a terrible philosopher.'
Really interesting!
In the traditional sense then, Aquinas follows Aristotle in arguing that 'being' (esse – the 'is-ness' of the thing that is) is known and understood by its 'act'; that is, a thing is known and understood by what it is (it's esse), a 'static' understanding – this is a fish, that is a bird – and simultaneously dynamically, by 'how' it is, fishes swim in the sea, birds fly in the air ...
We first apprehend the concrete act-uality of something – a flying thing, a swimming thing, or even a thing that swims and flies! – and then contemplate its is-ness – what is it to be a fish, a bird, a human, etc.
The contemporary understanding of agenda broadens:
This is what people commonly assume when the term is used in the critical evaluation of a text, etc.
In a proper scholarly thesis, the favoured methodology is the dialectical method, which today follows the pattern of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, that is the scholar proposes his or her thesis, then the objections to that thesis (if there are none, then it's a statement of the obvious), then argues the case by reason and logic to arrive at a conclusion, in which the antithesis is refuted or reconciled to the thesis.
Scholarly discussions, and books, tend to be dry, technical affairs, unless the point under discussion happens to be your 'thing'. Thy tend not to sell in any significant numbers – a notable exception being Hawkings' 'A Brief History of Time' which, apparently, is a book which 'everyone' owns, but few have read!
The issue with 'hidden agendas' results from the ancient arts of rhetoric and sophistry, which assumes to speak 'cleverly' and 'emotively' to win an audience to one's point of view is more important than whether that point of view is actually true or correct. Plato had a very low opinion of both. Aristotle was more allowing.
Best sellers, especially in theology, tend towards the latter, employing a more colourful and emotive language and, sadly, a tendency to assert a thesis without paying proper regard to the counter argument. Colour and emotion will always trump technical rigour in the wider marketplace, and people tend to buy the books by authors who endorse their viewpoint, rather than those that subject them to critical scrutiny.
Peer review is the best method we have for a balanced critique of any thesis, in my own experience I was directed to read the critics of my favourite theologians, as well as more of my favourite theologians. By that process one can come to an informed ground.
A classic case is Richard Dawkins.
In "The Blind Watchmaker, he puts forward the thesis of God-as-watchmaker, that God being at the apex of creation, and its creator, must necessarily be more complex than the complexity of living organisms, and then knocks the argument down.
He never deals with the contrary argument that God is not a thing as other things are, and that throughout history God has always been presented as 'One', and 'Simple' and 'Uncompounded'.
So he sets up a false thesis, knocks it down, and everyone applauds him because they never knew that he was thinking about God the wrong way from the very outset. The God Delusion is just more of the same. The only delusion being what Dawkins thinks theists think.
Dawkins' book is quite a doorstop. The response from a Dominican theologian was a little booklet that showed where Dawkins was making an erroneous assumption about the Christian idea of God.
A most telling move on his part was to tour America, promoting The God Delusion, by engaging with born-again evangelical Christians and making them look stupid. As one critic noted, 'it was like shooting fish in a barrel', basically punching someone well below his weight. It's notable he didn't seek out his his intellectual equal.
When he did, he usually came off badly. He launched into one Anglican priest in a discussion on the BBC, ridiculing Christians who declared a Biblical faith but could not name the first five books of the Bible.
His opponent responded by asking Dawkins the full book title (not the chapter titles) of his own 'bible', Charles Darwin's book on evolution ... Dawkins couldn't remember ... hoist on his own petard, as the saying goes.
I don't think Dawkins deliberately sets out to deceive. Nor do I doubt his faith in what he believes. It's just he's quite wrong, and inexcusably so, in telling others what we believe.
As one critic said, 'He's a brilliant biologist, but a terrible philosopher.'
