The Notebooks of Schubert Ogden

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Current »

scanned pdf

Hartshorne allows that "infinitely flexible love ... may be unimaginable, but," he replies, "we are here conceiving, not imagining" (LP: 101). But what guarantees that the words, "infinitely flexible love," succeed in capturing a thought, or concept -- as distinct from being either hopelessly unclear or outright self-contradictory? And even if they are thus successful, what does, or could, "infinitely flexible love" possibly add to "universal individual," defined purely formally, or transcendentally -- except either something conceptual but nonliteral, because merely metaphorical, symbolic, or analogical; or something conceptual but redundant, because only verbally distinguishable from what is already included in the meaning of "universal individual"?

18 June 2005

  • No labels