My wife and I were speaking about David this morning and discussed a similar point: David referred to his earlier exploits--slaying the lion and the bear--to gain permission for fighting Goliath. I guess David went "from strength to strength" in his pilgrimage from private to public life.
I love Hillary's acknowledgement concerning the necessary role of the Sherpas. It makes me think of Hannah Arendt's concepts of power, strength, and violence. For her, strength is an individual attribute, and power comes from acting together in the public realm. She didn't find strength interesting, but I think your take on strength would have intrigued her. It certainly intrigues me. Arendt seemed to find David and Goliath interesting only if she could extrapolate a lesson on power from it: "The story of David and Goliath is only metaphorically true; the power of a few can be greater than the power of many . . ." (The Human Condition, pg. 200). Coming at it from different angles, Arendt and Hillary, I think, would arrive at the same point you do: "We belong together."
Thanks, Bryce. You provoke more reflection. Thinking further without assuming you'd disagree: I would say not that David went "from strength to strength" in his pilgrimage from private to public life, but that he went "from strength to power." David’s victory over Goliath wasn't just a physical triumph but also a crucial step in his rise to power, illustrating how personal strengths—courage, faith, and cleverness—can translate into public authority. It's as though Arendt, while extracting her political lesson, might have overlooked that David’s journey embodies both literal and metaphorical transformations of power in its fullest sense. - Nonetheless, I appreciate your comment: "Arendt and Hillary, I think, would arrive at the same point you do: 'We belong together.'"
Yes. Arendt would agree, I think, with "from strength to power" so long as she were permitted her metaphorical reading. David's "What will be done for the man . . .?" line of inquiry suggests (I think, anyway) a keen political player.
My wife and I were speaking about David this morning and discussed a similar point: David referred to his earlier exploits--slaying the lion and the bear--to gain permission for fighting Goliath. I guess David went "from strength to strength" in his pilgrimage from private to public life.
I love Hillary's acknowledgement concerning the necessary role of the Sherpas. It makes me think of Hannah Arendt's concepts of power, strength, and violence. For her, strength is an individual attribute, and power comes from acting together in the public realm. She didn't find strength interesting, but I think your take on strength would have intrigued her. It certainly intrigues me. Arendt seemed to find David and Goliath interesting only if she could extrapolate a lesson on power from it: "The story of David and Goliath is only metaphorically true; the power of a few can be greater than the power of many . . ." (The Human Condition, pg. 200). Coming at it from different angles, Arendt and Hillary, I think, would arrive at the same point you do: "We belong together."
Thanks, Bryce. You provoke more reflection. Thinking further without assuming you'd disagree: I would say not that David went "from strength to strength" in his pilgrimage from private to public life, but that he went "from strength to power." David’s victory over Goliath wasn't just a physical triumph but also a crucial step in his rise to power, illustrating how personal strengths—courage, faith, and cleverness—can translate into public authority. It's as though Arendt, while extracting her political lesson, might have overlooked that David’s journey embodies both literal and metaphorical transformations of power in its fullest sense. - Nonetheless, I appreciate your comment: "Arendt and Hillary, I think, would arrive at the same point you do: 'We belong together.'"
Yes. Arendt would agree, I think, with "from strength to power" so long as she were permitted her metaphorical reading. David's "What will be done for the man . . .?" line of inquiry suggests (I think, anyway) a keen political player.