Image result for kathleen nott

Francis Schaeffer pictured below:




Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” episode 6 “The Scientific Age” , episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” episode 4 “The Reformation” episode 3 “The Renaissance”episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and  episode 1 “The Roman Age,” . My favorite episodes are number 7 and 8 since they deal with modern art and culture primarily.(Joe Carter rightly noted,Schaefferwho always claimed to be an evangelist and not aphilosopher—was often criticized for the way his work oversimplifiedintellectual history and philosophy.” To those critics I say take a chill pillbecause Schaeffer was introducing millions into the fields of art andculture!!!! !!! More people need to read his works and blog about thembecause they show how people’s worldviews affect their lives!

J.I.PACKER WROTE OF SCHAEFFER, “His communicative style was not that of acautious academic who labors for exhaustive coverage and dispassionate objectivity. It was rather that of an impassioned thinker who paints his vision of eternal truth in bold strokes and stark contrasts.Yet it is a fact that MANY YOUNG THINKERS AND ARTISTS…HAVE FOUND SCHAEFFER’S ANALYSES A LIFELINE TO SANITY WITHOUT WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE GONE ON LIVING.”

Francis Schaeffer’s works  are the basis for a large portion of my blog posts andthey have stood the test of time. In fact, many people would say that many of the things he wrote in the 1960’s  were right on  in the sense he saw where ourwestern society was heading and he knew that abortion, infanticide and youthenthansia were  moral boundaries we would be crossing  in the coming decadesbecause of humanism and these are the discussions we are having now!)

There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true asSchaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? There is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This linkshows how to do that.

Francis Schaeffer in Art and the Bible noted, “Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. Many modern artists seem not to see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art.” 

Many modern artists are left in this point of desperation that Schaeffer points out and it reminds me of the despair that Solomon speaks of in Ecclesiastes.  Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chanceplus matter.” THIS IS EXACT POINT SCHAEFFER SAYS SECULAR ARTISTSARE PAINTING FROM TODAY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED ARE A RESULTOF MINDLESS CHANCE.


Schaeffer asserted:


How do we know we know?


Take another example out of the history of this new approach in philosophy, that of David Hume (1711-1776). In 1732 he shocked the world with A Treatise of Human Nature. John Locke (1632-1704) had already denied the concept of “innate ideas” of right and wrong; that is, Locke denied that these ideas are inherent in the mind from birth. This had troubled many. Then Hume burst on the scene with a challenge which went further.

What was most startling was his progression beyond skepticism concerning God and other things of the “invisible world” to a skepticism about the visible world as well. Among other things, he questioned the concept of causality. That is, Hume challenged the notion that there is a reality in the external world which leads us to speak about one thing as being the cause of another. When we see a tree bending and swaying and its leaves falling to the ground and racing off across the field, we naturally speak of the wind as causing this phenomenon. Hume challenged this.
Following on from Locke, who said that all knowledge comes only from the senses, Hume argued that causality is not perceived by the senses. What we perceive are two events following closely upon each other. It was custom, he argued, which led us to speak in terms of causality, not any objective “force” working in the things themselves. Anyone can see where this thinking leads, and it was so understood at the time. If causality is not real, science becomes impossible – for what scientists are doing is tracing the path of cause and effect from one event to the next.
A modern British humanist, Kathleen Nott, has written perceptively about Hume in Objections to Humanism (1967): “Among great philosophers, Hume … hung his nose as far as any over the nihilistic abyss.”83 This is right. Hume was questioning the most basic elements of our experience. Yet he was trying to be consistent to his presuppositions (that is, his starting point). Where did this lead him? To a skepticism about knowledge itself. Hume wrote designedly against the Christian world-view which prevailed in England at the time. He wanted to dismantle the system of ideas which came out of the Bible, of a God before whom man was responsible, of people being more than matter, of a life after death which seemed to defy all natural law. Where he ended, though, was with uncertainty even about the ordinary things of life. As Kathleen Nott continues: “Hume’s philosophizing was indeed a radical skepticism, which left no convincing logical grounds for believing that anything natural, let alone supernatural, was there at all.”84
But there is something even more striking about Hume. Skepticism was the direction in which his philosophy led him; yet he was not able to live with it himself. He “hung his nose over the nihilistic abyss” – and we can picture him standing on the edge and peering over – but what then? Nott says he “withdrew it sharply when he saw the psychological risks involved.” Hume himself said in A Treatise of Human Nature (Volume I):
Should it be asked me whether I sincerely assent to this argument which I have been to such pains to inculcate, and whether I be really one of those skeptics who hold that all is uncertain … I … should reply … that neither I nor any other person was ever sincerely and constantly of that opinion … I dine, I play backgammon, I converse and am merry with my friends; and when, after 3 or 4 hours amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold and strained and ridiculous that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any further. Thus the skeptic still continues to reason and believe, though he asserts that he cannot defend his reason by reason; and by the same rule, he must assent to the principle concerning the existence of body, though he cannot pretend, by any argument of philosophy, to maintain its veracity.85
We believe there are only two basic alternatives in the search for the source of knowledge. One is that a person attempts to find the answers to all his questions alone. The other is that he seeks revealed truths from God. We shall come to the second later. Now we are looking at the former, and we are suggesting that this is the basic problem with which all humanistic systems must wrestle: the problem of knowledge.
We could go into many other details concerning the subsequent history of the ideas we have dealt with, including in particular Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and his own “Copernican revolution” in philosophy and also the developments surrounding Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) and linguistic philosophy in the twentieth century. We shall stop here, partly to keep the discussion of modern philosophy from becoming too technical, but mainly because the basic difficulties had already been expressed within a century of the birth of modern philosophy.
Starting with himself, a person cannot establish an adequate explanation for the amazing possibility that he can observe the world around him and be assured that his observations have a correspondence with reality. The problem is not just that a person cannot know everything. The need is not for exhaustive knowledge; the need is for a base for any knowledge at all. That is, even though we know we cannot exhaustively perceive even the smallest things in our experience, we want assurance that we have really perceived something – that is “perception” is not simply an “image” in our brain, a model or symbol of reality which we have projected out from ourselves. We want to know that we have had a real contact with reality. Even Hume had to admit that his philosophizing did not make sense, that it did not fit into his own experience of the world. On the humanist side this is the great tension – to have no reason for reason and yet at the same time to have to live continuously on the reality of reason.
At this point, someone is bound to ask, “But why is it necessary to have an `adequate explanation’ for knowledge?” Agreeing that Descartes, Hume, and others could find no theoretical base which tied in with their experience, isn’t it sufficient to just reason? Probably many of you have been wanting to ask this, as you have followed along. It is a good question, for the bulk of the world never bothers about the issues which Locke, Hume, and others like them raised. Most people simply live, going about their daily lives, never troubling themselves about reality and fantasy, the subject and the object, and so on. And we are not suggesting that their experience in itself is invalid, as if to imply that they are not perceiving and knowing the universe around them. They are. What we are saying is that – whether they know it or not – their experience is possible only because they are living in the universe the Bible describes, that is, in a universe which was created by God. Their internal faculty of knowing was made by God to correspond to the world and its form which He made and which surrounds them.
If, however, we attempt to bypass the question, “Why is it possible for man to have knowledge in this way?” we must then remember the other two great problems any system which starts only from man. Recall the illustration of the oil tanker and the rock. The rock is the problem of knowledge which we have been considering. That is the central problem. But there are two forms of pollution which flow from the broken ship of knowledge: first, the meaninglessness of all things and, second, the relativity of morals.



Obituary: Kathleen Nott

IN EXTREME old age (she lived to be 94), Kathleen Nott, by then severely handicapped by deafness and Parkinson’s disease, more than once complained to me that she had been underrated. In this she was right. As novelist, poet, critic and editor, she was a woman of formidable gifts, to which, in her prime, she brought a no less formidable determination and energy. If she failed to achieve the widespread popularity that such gifts deserved, it was undoubtedly because her poetry and novels were so often so cerebral and her critical writings so often so intolerant of the views of others.

I had always assumed that Kathleen Nott had come from the professional classes. I was therefore astonished when, only recently, after many years of friendship, I learned that her father had been a lithographic printer and that her mother had kept the Brixton boarding house that became the setting of her 1960 novel Private Fires.

Regarded by everyone in her youth as a bird of paradise in a family of sparrows, she moved effortlessly from state school to King’s College London, and then, on an open exhibition, to Somerville College, Oxford. Her original intention had been to read English, but she soon decided that that was not a sufficiently demanding academic discipline and instead opted for PPE.

It was at Oxford that she met Christopher Bailey, the distinguished “boffin” (as she would refer to him, after their divorce, half in admiration and half in derision) whom she would marry, with whom she would escape at the last minute from Holland when the Germans invaded, and whom, soon after the Second World War, she would accompany to Sweden – a country of which she would write brilliantly, albeit with a marked lack of love or enthusiasm, in her 1961 A Clean, Well-lighted Place.

It was in 1961 that she achieved her first major success with a contentious and strenuously argued work of philosophy, The Emperor’s New Clothes, in which, herself an atheist, she took issue with such fashionable Christian propagandists of the time as Graham Greene, T.S. Eliot and C.S. Lewis. She enjoyed all the ensuing controversy, dismissing those who disagreed with her as “nincompoops” (a favourite word of hers when she felt that people, however eminent, had slipped below her own rigorous intellectual standards).

For many years, from the 1950s onwards, Kathleen Nott was active in Pen, when that organisation was more concerned with literature and less concerned with human rights than it is today. She was therefore the obvious choice to edit for Pen the Unesco-sponsored Bulletin of Selected Books (later retitled Pen International), a publication designed to increase knowledge of literature written in languages of lesser currency. Unfortunately, during her 27-year editorship, sales remained disappointing, such was her intellectual approach to a task which she carried out with unfaltering dedication for a salary far smaller than her father would have earned as a printer.

In 1974 she was elected President of English Pen. But this office, which at first brought her so much pleasure, eventually brought her chagrin. In the following year Pen began its plans to host an international congress, and reluctantly the executive committee came to the conclusion that Nott lacked the ease and charm of personality essential in anyone whose task it would be to entertain a host of eminent and, in many cases, demanding writers from all over the world. Instead of being re-elected for a further year of office, she was therefore replaced by Stephen Spender. When attempting to enlist my support to oppose his election, she told me: “I am as good a poet as he is and a far better critic.” I had not the heart to tell her that, although that might indeed be true, she unfortunately lacked both his charisma and his popularity all over the world.

But if Kathleen Nott lacked those attributes, she was, until her last, increasingly depressing years as a semi-invalid in a nursing home, always stimulating and entertaining company when among friends. Over dinner at the University Women’s Club, she would regale me with scandalous anecdotes about other writers, in a voice so loud (like many deaf people she was unaware of its volume) that I was nervous of how much was being overheard. Her jokes were good, if often acerbic, and she had the rare ability to be as much amused by the jokes of others as by her own.

On her retirement from her Pen editorship, I wrote of her as “a poet sadly underrated by those swept hither and thither on choppy tides of fashion, a prose writer who combines vigour with self-discipline, and a philosopher with a rare gift for exegesis not only of her own ideas but of the ideas of others”. I meant every word of that tribute then, and I mean every word of it now.

Kathleen Cecilia Nott, writer: born London 11 February 1905; FRSL 1977; married 1929 Christopher Bailey (marriage dissolved); died Swindon, Wiltshire 20 February 1999.

 David Hume and “Radical Skepticism”
Generally regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, David Hume (1711-1776) —
the last of the great triumvirate of “British empiricists” — was also noted as an historian and essayist. A
master stylist in any genre, Hume’s major philosophical works — A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740),
the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), as
well as the posthumously published Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) — remain widely and
deeply influential, despite their being denounced by many of his contemporaries as works of scepticism and
Quotes by David Hume in which he cannot find any rational, scientific “proof” that the principle of “cause
and effect” exists. His “radical skepticim” demonstrates that for the philsophically consistent atheist,
science (which presupposes “cause and effect” and the uniformity of nature) cannot lead to any knowledge
about the nature of reality whatsoever:
It appears that, in single instances of the operation of bodies, we never can, by our utmost
scrutiny, discover any thing but one event following another, without being able to
comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connexion between it
and its supposed effect. The same difficulty occurs in contemplating the operations of mind
on body- where we observe the motion of the latter to follow upon the volition of the
former, but are not able to observe or conceive the tie which binds together the motion and
volition, or the energy by which the mind produces this effect. The authority of the will
over its own faculties and ideas is not a whit more comprehensible: So that, upon the whole,
there appears not, throughout all nature, any one instance of connexion which is conceivable
by us. All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never
can observe any tie between them. They seemed conjoined, but never connected. And as we
can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward
sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or force
at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed either in
philosophical reasonings or common life. (David Hume, 1737)
..all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect; that
our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience; and all our experimental
conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. ….
Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact
beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. (Hume, 1737)
I shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the
knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori; but arises
entirely from experience, when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined
with each other. (Hume, 1737)
It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance
of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that
resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone,
without some new argument or inference, proves not that, for the future, it will continue so.
(Hume, 1737)

I say then, that, even after we have experience of the operations of cause and effect, our
conclusions from that experience are not founded on (a priori) reasoning, or any process of
the understanding.(Hume, 1737)
Francis Schaeffer, in The God Who is There, argues that the more philosophically consistent atheists are
with their worldview, the less they will live in the real world. Conversely, the more they live in the real
world, the less philosophically consistent they will be.
Applying this principle to Hume, we find a “point of tension” between his philosophy and the way he lived
his life:
Should it be asked me whether I sincerely assent to this argument which I have been to
such pains to inculcate, whether I be really one of those skeptics who hold that everything
is uncertain, I should reply that neither I nor any other person was ever sincerely and
constantly of that opinion. I dine, I play backgammon, I converse and am merry with my
friends and when after three or four hours of amusement I would return to these
speculations, they appear so cold and strange and ridiculous that I cannot find in my heart
to enter into them any further. Thus the skeptic still continues to reason and believe
though he asserts he cannot defend his reason by reason. (Hume)
“Among great philosophers Hume, who hung his nose as far as any over the nihilistic abyss, withdrew it
sharply when he saw the psychological risks involved and he advised dilution of metaphysics by playing
backgammon and making merry with his friends. The conclusion of Hume’s philosophizing was indeed a
radical skepticism which left no convincing logical grounds for believing anything natural was there at all
and he saved his reason by refusing to take the implications of his philosophy to heart.”
Kathleen Nott – Objections to Humanism


Kathleen Nott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kathleen Cecilia Nott FRSL (11 February 1905 – 20 February 1999) was a British poet, novelist, critic, philosopher and editor.


Kathleen Nott was born in Camberwell, London. Her father, Philip, was a lithographic printer, and her mother, Ellen, ran a boarding house in Brixton; Kathleen was their third daughter. She was educated at Mary Datchelor Girls’ School (now closed), London, before attending King’s College, London. She soon left King’s College on an Open Exhibition scholarship to Somerville College, Oxford. The scholarship was in English Literature, but on arriving at Oxford, Nott switched to Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) in which she took a IVth in 1929.[1]

It was at Oxford that she met Christopher Bailey, an electronics and computer engineer, whom she was to marry in 1929. During the 1930s, Nott was a social worker and psychologist in the East End of London, an experience which would inspire her first novel, Mile End(1938), which is set in the area. Bailey’s work took the couple to the Netherlands, from which they escaped when the German army invaded in 1940.

During the war, Nott and Bailey lived in Bournemouth, and afterwards they moved to Sweden. Their marriage was dissolved in the 1950s, They had no children.

It was her book The Emperor’s Clothes (1953), which drew Nott to the attention of a much wider audience. An atheist, Nott attacked what she described as the “neo-scholasticism” of such dominant religious literary figures as T.S. Eliot and C.S. Lewis.

In 1954, Nott began contributing book reviews to The Observer; much of her critical work would appear in that newspaper. Essays and reviews by Nott were also published by Encounter, Partisan Review, The Nation, The Listener, New Society, Commentary, The Timesand The Spectator. Nott’s last review for The Observer was published in 1986. She also wrote extensively for the humanist and rationalist movement, and many of her articles were published in the Rationalist Annual, Question, and Humanist. She also translated books and articles.

In the early 1970s, Nott moved to Horsham, where she lived with a friend. Later in the decade she moved in with one of her sisters in Thornton Heath.

Nott was a member of the University Women’s Club and the Society of Authors. In Who’s Who she listed her recreations as playing the piano and gardening.[2] She was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1977.

Nott suffered from deafness and Parkinson’s Disease in her later years. When she died, Nott was living at Wemyss Lodge Residential Home Swindon, Wiltshire.

Critical reception[edit]

Mile End (1938), Nott’s first novel, was reviewed by the Times Literary Supplement. The reviewer felt that there was “something a shade clinical, a trifle too scientifically tolerant or indulgent, in the view of humanity unfolded here”, and found Nott’s prose “sharply individual but perhaps a little too mannered in its intellectual precision.” Nevertheless, “she gives the impression of having entered with astonishing acuteness and subtlety of mind into the impulses of the Jewish temperament, the psychological sway of Jewish religious lore and messianic tradition, the alien intensities of the social and domestic mood of the ghetto.” The reviewer concluded that it was “an admirably balanced story, which gains in narrative force and even in warmth as it advances.” [3]

Nott’s debut collection of poetry, Landscapes and Departures (1947) received a positive review in the Times Literary Supplement. The reviewer said that although Nott was a “difficult poet”, her “quality as a writer is immediately obvious”, concluding that “In spite of the difficulty of her poems, Miss Nott deserves to be read. She has a rich, harsh and rather masculine talent, and every poem here is full of vigour.” [4]


Nott became involved in the writers’ organisation PEN in the 1950s, becoming editor (initially acting editor[5]) of the organisation’s journal, PEN Bulletin of Selected Books (later renamed PEN International), in 1960. She held the post until 1988.

She was briefly President of PEN in 1975,[6] staying on as a vice-president until the end of her life.

Humanism and rationalism[edit]

Nott was a committed humanist and rationalist, as signalled by the publication of her controversial The Emperor’s New Clothes (1953), Writing on the occasion of Nott’s death, a National Secular Society‘s former general secretary, Colin McCall, explained the significance of the book:

You need to realise the literary situation in post-war Britain to appreciate the importance of Kathleen Nott… This was a time when T.S. Eliot reigned supreme, not only as poet, but as critic; when Graham Greene, C.S. Lewis and Dorothy L. Sayers were, in their different ways, spreading dogmatic Christian orthodoxy; and when the Times Literary Supplement (January 22, 1954) said the acceptance of authority in matters of religious belief “is now once more an important constituent in European letters”. It was the philosophical inadequacies of this “constituent” that Kathleen Nott had exposed in The Emperor’s New Clothes[7]

Nott contributed chapters to H.J. Blackham‘s collection of essays, Objections to Humanism (1963) (a humanist response to Objections to Christianity from the same publishers), and The Humanist Outlook (1968), edited by A.J. Ayer. In “Is Rationalism Sterile?”, Nott wrote:

To be too analytical, to demand explanations, reasons, and logical or moral justifications can, we know, destroy human trust and therefore human relations… Safeguarding, the longing for final reassurance characterizes all of us, rationalists and religious alike, and the prestige of objective truth is only an intellectual parallel… It seems to me that the ‘theologians’ on either side of the rationalist-supernaturalist controversy have become mere case-makers, primarily out for proofs. (Natural enough, no doubt, but meanwhile the riches of feeling, religious or human, have been flung out with the bath-water.) It looks as if some kinds of argument, whatever they appear to be about, can indeed be largely sterile because they are not really aimed at finding a synthesis, a solution, at making peace. They belong to a side, they are covert polemic, and they aim at victory. With warfare of all kinds, truth is indeed the first victim.[8]

For Nott, rationalism “in the nineteenth-century dyed-in-the-wool sense of being almost wholly preoccupied with the question of the existence of God, and with rebutting any supernatural sanction for morality”, is “sterile” [9]

. However, “I do not think that humanists have to be rationalists in the old sense.”.[10]

In “Humanism and the Arts”, Nott said that “humanists of our time are not as strong as they should be on the meaning and value of art and the artist.” She also admitted that “as soon as I begin to write about Humanism or speak from a Humanist platform I find mysself in full retreat towards square nought. If someone does not ask me what or who is a humanist – I find I am asking myself – or the audience.” [11] Returning to the theme of Is Rationalism Sterile?”, not observes that:

Many humanists seem to be just non-Godists. All they seriously worry about is the mid-Victorian controversy and it is here that they seem irremovably stuck… the large mass of contemporary literature has made at least one thing clear: that on the subject of God’s existence and of the supernatural there is no longer any possibility of reasoned communication.[12]

Instead, Nott advocated that humanists should examine “the real possibilities of the real concrete human being.” [12] She continued:

The job for the humanist is to try and extract the human values of religion, to separate them out from the theological languages in which they disguise themselves.[13]

Nott was President of the Progressive League (1959-1961), and an honorary associate of the Rationalist Press Association, from 1979 until her death in 1999.[14]



  • The Emperor’s Clothes: an attack on the dogmatic orthodoxy of T.S. Eliot, Graham Greene, Dorothy Sayers, C.S. Lewis, and others. (1953). London: Heinemann.
  • A Soul in the Quad (1969)
  • Philosophy and Human Nature (1971)
  • The Good Want Power: an essay in the psychological possibilities of liberalism (1977)


  • Mile End (1938)
  • The Dry Deluge (1947)
  • Private Fires (1960)
  • An Elderly Retired Man (1963)


  • Landscapes and Departures (1947)
  • Poems from the North (1956)
  • Creatures and Emblems (1960)
  • Elegies, and other poems (1981)


  • A Clean, Well-Lighted Place: a private view of Sweden (1961)

Articles and book chapters[edit]

  • “Is rationalism sterile?” (1963) in Blackham, H.J. (ed.) Objections to Humanism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964, pp. 55–78.
  • “Mortal Statistics” (1964), Commentary, October. Available online (subscription required)
  • The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler” [book review] (1964), Commentary, November. Available online (subscription required)
  • “Koestler and his critics” (1968), Encounter, Vol. 30 (2), pp. 76–81.
  • “Humanism and the Arts” (1968). in Ayer, A.J. (ed.) The Humanist Outlook, London: Pemberton/Barrie and Rockliff, pp. 177–185.
  • “Ideology and moral reality” (1985). New Humanist, Vol. 100 (4), Autumn, pp. 18–20.


  • Chauvet, Lucien (1948). North-Westerly Gale.
  • Bacchelli, Riccardo (1956). Son of Stalin.


  1. Jump up^ Oxford University Calendar, 1932, p.283
  2. Jump up^
  3. Jump up^ “East End Jewry” [review of Mile End by Kathleen Nott] Times Literary Supplement, 3 December 1939, p.767.
  4. Jump up^ “An original poet” [Review of Landscapes and Departures by Kathleen Nott]. Times Literary Supplement, 24 May 1947, p.254.
  5. Jump up^ [1]
  6. Jump up^
  7. Jump up^ McCall (1999)
  8. Jump up^ Nott (1963, p.68)
  9. Jump up^ Nott (1963, p.72)
  10. Jump up^ Nott (1963, p.78)
  11. Jump up^ Nott (1968, p.179).
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b Nott (1968, p.180)
  13. Jump up^ Nott (1968, p.182)
  14. Jump up^ Cooke (2003, p.322)


  • [Anon] (1999). Obituary of Kathleen Nott, The Times, 24 February.
  • Cooke, Bill (2003). The Blasphemy Depot: a hundred years of the Rationalist Press Association. London: RPA. ISBN 03010030025.
  • King, Francis. (1999). Obituary of Kathleen Nott, The Independent, 11 March
  • McCall, Colin (1999). “Kathleen Nott (1905-1999)” [“Down to Earth”]. The Freethinker, Vol. 119 (4), April, p. 10.
  • Paterson, Elizabeth (1999). “A voice against the tides of fashion” [Obituary of Kathleen Nott], The Guardian, 23 February, p. 16.


Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

 Featured artist is Walton Ford

Walton Ford

Walton Ford was born in 1960 in Larchmont, New York. Ford graduated from the Rhode Island School of Design with the intention of becoming a filmmaker, but later adapted his talents as a storyteller to his unique style of large-scale watercolor. Blending depictions of natural history with political commentary, Ford’s meticulous paintings satirize the history of colonialism and the continuing impact of slavery and other forms of political oppression on today’s social and environmental landscape.

Each painting is as much a tutorial in flora and fauna as it is as a scathing indictment of the wrongs committed by nineteenth-century industrialists or—locating the work in the present—contemporary American consumer society. An enthusiast of the watercolors of John James Audubon, Ford celebrates the myth surrounding the renowned naturalist-painter while simultaneously repositioning him as an infamous anti-hero—who, in reality, killed more animals than he ever painted. Each of Ford’s animal portraits doubles as a complex, symbolic system, which the artist layers with clues, jokes, and erudite lessons in colonial literature and folktales.

Walton Ford is the recipient of several national awards and honors, including a fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts. Ford’s work has been featured at Bowdoin College Museum of Art, Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art, Whitney Museum of American Art at Champion, and Forum for Contemporary Art in St. Louis. After living in New York City for more than a decade, Walton Ford relocated his studio to Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Ford and his family reside in upstate New York.

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0   Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE   Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • SLIMJIM  On October 25, 2018 at 2:16 am

    I bookmarked this to share in our next Presup round up

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: