/lit/ - Literature

>>15969143
historically, it was an ascendance. people of the caliber of albert the great were still puzzling out (not very well) what the fuck the greeks were doing and how to correctly appropriate aristotle, this being hundreds of years after the initial appropriation or (almost instant) hellenization that kind of made Christianity.

>In other words, I don't find it evident that "deficient, irrationalistic reason" comes necessarily from revelation

it's a historical process, not a necessary development.

>As to whether it is knowledge, it is certainly not knowledge in the sense that it can be reasoned out, but that is why it is revelation. It would be knowledge of an altogether different domain.

if it is knowledge, there is something that relates the 'domains', that relates our ordinary knowledge and this knowledge. that revelation is a source of knowledge is explicitly denied by strauss, see his correspondence with voegelin for an apparently nonveiled, 'private' demonstration of this.

>>14040856