I will continue to address your objections.
If you believe, as I do, that the central event of the modern period is the unsettlement of the given world in which we live, both in our relation to nature and to tradition, then the central intellectual tradition is existentialism, which explores the implications of our freedom, and tries to clarify our situation in the world. Jaspers addresses the historical moment with particular clarity, especially in explicating the importance of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard; Heidegger treats the themes in a non- theistic manner with the greatest depth; and Buber is the best representative of the theistic side of existentialism, and the claim that when we address Being, it addresses us. I pared it down as much as I thought I could, for example, leaving off Sartre, but I am hard pressed to pare it down any more....
On Chesterton and Lewis, they are not merely Christian apologists, but grapple with the way that the central religious and moral traditions of Europe can be understood in the modern world. They are very influential on a large number of educated theists (and even agnostics), and their influence is only increasing....
On the film directors: Again, it depends on a rational assessment of the importance of film as a medium, and of directors in the creation of films. Obviously, I know of no way to prove beyond cavil that they are both so important, but it is certainly arguable that they are, especially the clear auteurs, like Bergman. Anyway, I think that films have the position of theater in the Elizabethan period, or novels in the 19th century,as the culturally dominant narrative form, and have shaped the culture profoundly. Most of the directors I included wrote, at least in collaboration, as well, or are reputed to have transmuted their materials and contributed to the form... |
