ql I think the book was composed in two parts: the poetic part and the narrative part, and that the poetic part is the more ancient, and more interesting from the point of view of its discussion of the relation between God and man. I wonder if you have heard about or read Karen Armstrong's book The Great Transformation that discusses the sort of rupture in thought around the time of Socrates that you mention. |
Slim
I agree that the poetic part is much older.
I read Karen Armstrongs book a couple of years ago and must dig it out again.
The reason I mention Socartes is because I kinda see a parallel unfolding in the book of Job as that which happened during the time of Socrates. However in Job, God reminds Job of powerful cosmological elements in nature to bring him out his limiting experience of being very ill and depressed. (In Socrates time there was a move away from cosmology to put man at the centre of the world whereas in Job God does the opposite)
I'm also trying to find a way to synthesize Zizek's interpretation of Job. If I've understood Zizek correctly, he seems to be saying that we shouldn't give weight to a purely ideological reading of Job but should consider that, although as Leo pointed out he knows a great deal more than Job, God himself is aware of unformed powerful forces that are in a state of flux and chaos. And that God is trying to make Job aware of these forces as he knows that Job is very confined and suffering in his predicament but that being aware of the tremendous motion and energy all around us, that one can still act ("gird up your loins please" ) in harmony with or against natural forces like the animals and birds etc seem to do. And do this despite one's limiting human situation and perhaps in doing so see beyond the human.
edit: by the way is Zizek very humanist?