He was also a Catholic priest and passed away in Missouri. I don’t think it would be unfair to say that his Catholic background allowed him to have a more balanced view of “West” and “East”.
Hmmm, I’m not sure yet about this. What I have noticed so far, however, is that his Catholic background appears to have directed him towards certain intellectual conversations that people who were not part of that world were not exposed to. He seems to have written very little about Catholicism, however it’s clear that he was influenced by the ideas about modernity that certain Catholic intellectuals were talking about in the 20th century.
For instance, from what I’ve read so far, he didn’t seem to think that Personalism (chủ nghĩa nhân vị) was the answer, but he was concerned with essentially the same issues – the feeling that as modernity had created individuals and destroyed communities there was a need to create a new sense of unity. He felt that Communism and Capitalism were both incapable of doing this as they lacked a spiritual core. As far as I know, that’s the same type of stuff that Personalism tried to deal with.
Oh yes, that’s what I meant. I didn’t mean to imply that his writing was saturated by Catholicism or anything like that. I think it was definitely due to his background studying philosophy in Europe as part of his Catholic education that he stands out from others.
By the way, Ta Chi Dai Truong doesn’t have a very flattering opinion of Kim Dinh, did you ever read into this?
Yes, Ta Chi Dai Truong’s unflattering account of “huyen su” is what I knew about before I started to actually read Kim Dinh’s writings. I agree with what he wrote. At the same time, the early writings that I’ve been talking about are very intelligent and perceptive. So what I want to figure out is how and why this happened. How did someone who started off being very logical and perceptive, end up writing some things that were more or less ungrounded and illogical?
He was also a Catholic priest and passed away in Missouri. I don’t think it would be unfair to say that his Catholic background allowed him to have a more balanced view of “West” and “East”.
Hmmm, I’m not sure yet about this. What I have noticed so far, however, is that his Catholic background appears to have directed him towards certain intellectual conversations that people who were not part of that world were not exposed to. He seems to have written very little about Catholicism, however it’s clear that he was influenced by the ideas about modernity that certain Catholic intellectuals were talking about in the 20th century.
For instance, from what I’ve read so far, he didn’t seem to think that Personalism (chủ nghĩa nhân vị) was the answer, but he was concerned with essentially the same issues – the feeling that as modernity had created individuals and destroyed communities there was a need to create a new sense of unity. He felt that Communism and Capitalism were both incapable of doing this as they lacked a spiritual core. As far as I know, that’s the same type of stuff that Personalism tried to deal with.
Oh yes, that’s what I meant. I didn’t mean to imply that his writing was saturated by Catholicism or anything like that. I think it was definitely due to his background studying philosophy in Europe as part of his Catholic education that he stands out from others.
By the way, Ta Chi Dai Truong doesn’t have a very flattering opinion of Kim Dinh, did you ever read into this?
http://www.talawas.org/talaDB/showFile.php?res=12188&rb=0302
Yes, Ta Chi Dai Truong’s unflattering account of “huyen su” is what I knew about before I started to actually read Kim Dinh’s writings. I agree with what he wrote. At the same time, the early writings that I’ve been talking about are very intelligent and perceptive. So what I want to figure out is how and why this happened. How did someone who started off being very logical and perceptive, end up writing some things that were more or less ungrounded and illogical?