Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner
Personally, I have always appreciated Lee's interpretation and emphasis on the two named trees in Eden. I just don't think he went far enough.
He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory.
The point seems clear: handling knowledge isn't wrong; imbibing on it is. Modern academia, particularly the humanities -- of which I was part -- eats voraciously from this tree. Eating, rather than simply handling, has caused academia to become the ugly thing that it is.
|
Thanks for bringing this thread back up Nell.
Just want to comment six years later on SpeakersCorner's post here, for anyone reading down the road. He seems to make the classic mistake of calling the tree "the tree of knowledge" and comparing it to what goes on in academia.
It's not the tree of knowledge. It's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Two very different things.
I mention this mainly because truncating the name of the tree, while convenient for typing, ends up changing what it is entirely. Lee also did this - called it the tree of knowledge - and used that to condemn knowledge. Well, it's not the tree of knowledge generally. It's specifically the tree of the knowledge of good and evil only.
After they ate of it God didn't say "behold they have become like us, knowing things, or having knowledge". God said, "behold they have become like us,
knowing good and evil."