This lecture seemed to have a good deal
of introductory material. Which is good, as the zeal of my
introduction may have left some deficiency in your understanding. I'm
grateful he introduced himself, as it gives him the opportunity to
introduce the ideas in the course in their own terms. For example,
what I call the “great conversation” he referred to as “The
West” or “The Western Heritage,” etc.. You get the idea, I
hope, that we are speaking of the same thing.
Practically speaking, my plan to focus
our discussions will proceed thusly:
- Watch the appointed video over the weekend. Take notes. Read the material given on their list to read. Ponder.
- Write a blog post which indicates what you learned from the lecture. This may be as informal or formal as you wish. This isn't supposed to be an intimidating venture, but one that gets you thinking. Forcing yourself to articulate your confounded thoughts will have a nice side effect of giving you a minutely greater understanding of the subject material, in that you must engage the ideas actively, rather than passively agreeing with everything you're told, or ignorantly dismissing it because you don't like it. Explain why.
- Respond to any questions that arise from within the course material itself,* or from my own questions to you.**
- For the sake of discussion, please have your entries posted by Tuesday, midnight ***. This way, everyone gets to talk about it with one another, which will increase the articulation factor as mentioned above.
* You'll notice, when you go to the first lecture's page, that there is a sidebar with a section called "readings." I cannot force you to actually read them, but I do think that you would be ennobled in character and would grow in understanding if you were to read this material prior to, or after, watching the lecture. While there are no readings for the first lecture, there will be in the future. I think we might benefit here from discussion of the primary documents. Until then, I highly recommend two essays in the "bibliography" section below: "The Lost Tools of Learning" and "Civilization Without Religion?" If you want, we can talk about those.
** You may also notice a link for a "discussion board" and "Q&A session" on the website. I have no knowledge of what this contains, or if the teachers are still available to answer your questions. I highly recommend making use of these tools, in the off-chance that you are able to get an answer from someone with a Ph.D. However, because we learn by asking questions, and because often the quality of the questions we ask can lead us to lesser or greater understanding, I was thinking about posting some of my own questions to you, gentle reader. I do this not because I have a huge ego (which I do), but because I know how disorienting this much information can be. Perhaps by focusing our questions and our discussion of such questions, we may begin to be educated.
*** Super Duper Extra Double Bonus Points if you can figure out why it's due on Tuesday, Midnight.
So, if you are absolutely bamboozled and don't know where to start, see how you can answer these questions regarding the matter discussed. They're broad questions, yes, so don't hurt yourself trying. These should get you started in articulating and wrestling with the ideas you heard. Brevity--being precise and concise--is a virtue, one that benefits the rest of us.
- Why is a course on the Western Heritage needed, for you as a) a human being, and b) as a citizen?
- Do your best to explain what the Western Heritage is. What is this "Great Conversation" about, given what you understand so far?
- Does history go in cycles (peak vs. trend), or does it progress (like technology, wherein iPhone > 56k modem)? Why or why not?
- "Athens" and "Jerusalem" made two claims. What were they? (In the video, it's somewhere around the 30:00 minute mark.)
- Does the nature of the universe change? What about the nature of human beings? If not, how does this impact our understanding of human history?
- What is "education" as he described it? How is this different than Is education more like a) a tree growing tall and majestic, or b) downloading a newer version of an operating system onto your computer?
- Do you think Dorothy Sayer's general outline for classical schooling would be useful in educating someone for today's world? Why or why not? Use quotes.
- What was the point of Russell Kirk's essay? What was his argument, and how did he support it?
I seriously hope I have time to do all of this. I hope you do too. As much as I am happy to walk through this with every one of you people, in view of the limitations on my own time and energy I will shamelessly give my attention first to those to whom I am related. Something about "natures." Whatever.
+VDMA
So, I just wrote a big long post aaaand it got lost. RAGE. Don't press "publish" unless you're signed in or something. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, my thoughts summed up (you guys are lucky--this will save you time, but you won't get my ideas as clear.):
1. The world is paradox, and I intend to reflect that in my posts. Jesus, God and man? Virgin birth? God DEAD? Come on now, let's get real. Life's paradox, and it's beautiful. We just mess it up because we can't take it.
2. The lecturer said that we should study the Western story because it deals with the universal. That's true, but the so does the East, though less directly. I had said this with so many more details before, but I'll try to give the same sense. The West experiences the universe by questioning, experiencing, going, doing, exploring, and pushing. That explains why the West advanced so much faster than the East, who tends to experience the universe by watching, waiting, (in Daoism doing wuwei, intentionless action), feeling, and sustaining. Both experiences of the universe are valid, though one will typically dominate. But they cannot really flourish without one another. It's like Adam and Eve. Adam could exist without Eve, but not well. "A man who loves his body (wife) loves himself." Sooo maybe if we actually studied the East more and paid more attention to it, we would actually get out of this economic, cultural, and political impasse we experience in our country.
3. Another imbalanced paradox which was presented by the lecturer is the view of the past and history. Many I know say that we don't appreciate the past--this is common in Christianity, Lutheranism in particular. Because we can't find anything good about our present situation but beer and Africa, we look romantically to the past when people respected God and had morals and bla bla bla. Maybe it WAS better in some ways back then, but pining after the glory days does not fix anything or recreate them. It's self-centered. I DO REALIZE IT HAS VALUE--but I am over-emphasizing one side of the argument, and you'll see why in my next point. What Lutherans need to do is realize HOW our heritage and inheritance from God is significant NOW, not in the past. If all we do is look backwards, we'll trip, fall, and break our neck. That goes not just for Lutheranism, but Western civilization in general.
4. I've found that if I balancedly present a paradox, then those on one side of the paradox can see the other side, but they will not approach it and achieve balance (reconciliation) like they should. They will just look at the other side, acknowledge its significance, and continue on doing what they're doing. That's find and dandy if the goal is not harmonization, but I believe that blessed are the peacemakers. So above, I weighted the paradox to be in favor of a more forward-looking philosophy, not because I believe that's inherently better than appreciating and learning from history, but because I suspect that many on here downplay our modern situation and romanticize the past. Balance, my friends.
5. Good night. This is late. I wish I knew why the due date was midnight Tuesday. Please respond. Bye.
...my unreasonably long response is my way of saying: "Good points! Let's talk about them..." rather than a pompous way of saying "no." Just in case you were wondering.
DeleteJust curious, but what makes you say that the West advanced faster than the East? Didn't the Chinese have gunpowder first? Who had writing first? What I'd like to ask is this, at what point in time did the East/West actually divide? If we're acting on the basis that we all came from the same place (adam/eve), does that mean that Adam = West, Eve = East? Or vice verses? No? Okay, how about.... Cain and Abel? Jacob and Esau? Persia and Greece? Greece and... China?
DeleteIn addition to this thought, would any of you notice a pattern, based on what Aaron said? When Aaron said:
"The West experiences the universe ... But they cannot really flourish without one another. "
...he finished with a parallel to Adam/Eve. If I'm understanding correctly, to take this metaphor further (and to echo my above paragraph), that makes the West into Adam (males), and the East into Eve (females). Is this true? If not, could we stereotype Aaron's definitions into, say, extroverts (West) and introverts (East)?
Babel. I'm guessing everyone went their separate ways after the failed tower/city of Babel. When the actual civilizations actually began to flourish? You'll have to check the historigraphical data on that one. Because I'm bad at memorizing dates.
DeleteWe're tracking "advanced" not really in terms of technology and ability-to-blow-stuff-up. While that's worth looking into, the real measure of a civilization is their ideas, and how well those ideas-which-answer-enduring-problems stack up against the actual enduring problems of human nature. The West had a couple answers, the East had a couple different answers. That's why they're worth studying. We don't study the Mongols much, since their answer was mostly just "spear things you don't like." We study the Romans because their answer was "spear things that are bad."
IMHO, East and West are divided because they've been flourishing without each other for so long. They're not opposites. They're independent angles, answering the same questions. If they were connected as some sort symbiotic relationship, they'd have integrated a lot better, and we wouldn't have such specific names for them.
(Example: Look at how well the two cities of Athens and Jerusalem worked together. They did, enough that we mention how they work together. Now try to imagine a similar ideological partnership between, like, Beijing and Athens. They seemed to have flourished their own civilizations without meeting one another for QUITE some time.)
Brennick, Keaton explained very well what I meant by "advanced." I was thinking more in terms of ideas. I'm obviously making massive generalizations, but this is the Great Conversation, after all.
DeleteAs for your proposing of more dichotomies: yes. But be careful. Separating is easy. It's seeing how these things (males/females, Law/Gospel, God/man, conservative/liberal) interact that is difficult and can lead us down some very DANGEROUS paths. Here's what I advise: don't make value judgments on the two elements of the dichotomies. In other words, don't say man is stronger, woman is weaker and other such things. The only one you're really safe on is saying God is better, man is worse. But the relationships are SO complicated that to just categorize them instantly does not give them the respect they are due. But keep thinking about them! (also, "dichotomy" might not be the best word here, but I hope you know what I mean.)
Keaton: "East and West are divided because they've been flourishing without each other for so long." This is a great thought which never occurred to me. I agree. What I'm saying is that throughout history, there have been times when the East and West were more and less separate. And like Dr. Arnn said, there are peaks and valleys in our development. Likewise, there are peaks and valleys in the development of the East and West. What I propose is that, say for example, the West goes and develops for a long time to a really high peak, but then it can develop no more until it gains something which the East has developed. So it's like each side develops as far as possible on its own SEPARATE from the other, but when it can go no farther, it gains something new from the other one which increases its maximum capacity for development. So the great exchanges between cultures in history have increased each others' potential maximums. Of course, sometimes one culture is so far different from another that they are incompatible (think Native Americans and colonials, Conquistadors and Aztecs, etc.) but that's a different note.
DeleteYeah you're right... "dichotemy" might not be the best word either, because it too implies a relation of things as opposites, where those things might not actually be opposite. But at this point we know what we mean (a system of ideas related to one another in some way), so... close enough. I get what you're saying.
So here's a question: Is it possible to avoid making value judgments? We have to, on some level. Rash value judgments about people's personality or character are tactless and unwise, because they don't respect people and they often miss the truth.
But at some point, everyone has to make a value judgment. You have to decide, at some point, that the guy who has broken into your house and taken your things and walked out is, in fact, a thief. It's a value judgment. You didn't judge rashly... you judged too slowly. He left. You don't have a TV anymore. You waited too long. You should have made a value judgment about that guy while he was breaking into your house, maybe. Avoiding making any decision (judgment) about something seems just as unwise as making a judgment too quickly.
At some point, someone has to look at history and its context and say "what Pharaoh did to the Israelites, or to the infants in the time of Moses was bad, because it destroyed human dignity and human life.” It's an easy example. But: we're making a value judgment there. Is it wrong to make value judgments at all? Or is it just wrong to make the wrong value judgment? (be careful, if you answer this question, you're making a value judgment, falling into my rhetorical trap, and agreeing with me... bwahaha)
DeleteI think it's probably a temptation to say “we shouldn't make any value judgments at all” ...because we've seen so many people make really, really, bad decisions, and we don't want to be like them. This happens a lot in college, and on the internet, because these seem to have a good deal of immature people. And we've seen them make judgments too quickly, without enough information, and without looking at the broader picture. So...yes, making value judgments rashly is unwise, but I'd suggest that it is also unwise to refrain from decisions entirely. It's easier to say “no one judge anyone else” ...but that can't work either. We have to make decisions. Everyone will end up doing that anyway. Otherwise, we end up at some kind of relativism, which is... unsustainable.
Obviously though, we have to be civil and charitable in how we express the judgments to which we've come. Interpersonally, there are right and wrong times and ways to express a value judgment. When you're talking about ideas or laws or history or morals or whatever else, it's almost impossible to avoid making definitive statements. Unless you want to talk in the subjunctive all the time.
Regarding eastern and western exchanges, I think that this question will end up getting settled by looking at more history, and what happens when “eastern” and “western” civilizations meet. While the civilizations certainly have traded technologies or products, I'm guessing that generic-eastern and generic-western philosophical trains of thought and cultural self-understandings are divergent enough that they don't get much from one another. It's a lot easier to see how Mediterranean cultures traded ideas than to see exchanges between China and Europe.
Either way, I think we're at a point in this train of thought where we need actual particular data. So I respectfully suggest tabling this train of thought until we have more specific examples.
Oooh, I finally saw your response! Anyway, thank you for these questions:
Delete1. Is it possible to avoid making value judgments?
2. Should we?
I am SO glad you asked these questions because I recently had a kind of revelation on them, and I want to know what you think. (The question is, can I adequately express myself through text? Not likely--impatience is a vice.)
Keeping with my fascination of paradox and pairs, my answer to both questions is "yes and no." Also, I have identified the temptation to not make value judgments just because others do so badly, but that is not my reason for proposing that maybe man ought to make them more seldom. (well, specifically Brennick, but I'd like to make this less personal)
Here's the basic premise of my theory: God makes value judgments. Humans are made in God's image, so they also make value judgments, but they don't do so as [well, completely, fully, truly, correctly] as God.
So God made Adam and Eve, and it was very good. They could make value judgments, but not so far as to say what was good and evil. So in Genesis 3:6 where it says "[T]he woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom" Eve makes a value judgment about how the fruit was and what it could give, but she did not (because she did not have the capability to) judge the fruit as good as opposed to evil, right as opposed to wrong, strong as opposed to weak, clothed as opposed to naked, etc. But when Adam and Eve ate, their eyes were opened, and they saw good and evil, and it caused them fear and shame where before they knew none.
So here's what I'm proposing. There are two kinds of value judgments: one made with the knowledge of good and evil, and one made without. How can one make a value judgment without knowing good and evil? Adam and Eve could say what was good (though they appeared not to have a notion of bad/evil) because they received the basis for their judgment from God. It's almost like a little child who repeats what his parents say, but doesn't really know what he's saying. He's speaking and making sense, yes, but he doesn't really comprehend it himself. We were meant for this kind of innocent discernment--that's how God created us. We were not created for the transcendent knowledge of right and wrong.
When we got that knowledge, though, we started putting ourselves in the place of God. Every judgment of good and evil that we made was an affront, an insult to God. So God sent Jesus to take OUR place of punishment. Jesus took away God's wrath, but He did not take away our knowledge of good and evil. (this is why we SHOULD make value judgments.) He DID give us faith, which instead of insisting on its own views and judgments, submits to God, who knows all things. So really, GOD has already made the judgments for us, we just have to identify them when we see them. So in your example of the thief, no judgment of good or evil was made. To identify someone as a thief is the same thing that Adam did when he named the creatures--"This tall spotted thing is a giraffe." That was not a statement about good or evil. In the same way, saying "This thing which takes objects from my house is a thief" makes no judgment of good or evil, and therefore does not put one in the place of God (sin). If you decide to let the thief walk out, you obey God by turning the other cheek. If you decide to try to bring the man to justice, you obey God's command that thieves repay what they steal.
This is very closely connected to the other thread. SHOULD we be studying the Law? The answer is, YES, if we can do so without pride and without putting ourselves in the place of God as law-givers. Like I said, I have trouble doing that. My old Adam is a good swimmer, so the saying goes.
What are your thoughts on all of this?
Two thoughts:
Delete1) Your theory seems to presuppose that the evil thing Adam and Eve did came from the fruit of the tree (and the knowledge therein), rather than their preceding act of disobedience. Applying "evil" to the material fruit of the tree or its resulting knowledge APART from the disobedience of God's word seems to take the emphasis off of God's command and promise. Is this what you meant to do? Was the "knowledge of Good and Evil" a curse, similar to working the ground or pain in childbirth? If so, does that mean God created Evil? Or did I misread your proposition?
That's all for now. I have to think further on the rest of what you said, because it makes sense. Before I think further on it... was that your presupposition?
2) Authority. God makes the final judgment. Human beings make secondary judgments, according to their station in life. We are not given the authority to decide who goes to heaven or not (for example), but we are given the authority to do other things under heaven. The king does not bear the sword in vain. Fathers do not bear the rod of discipline for any purpose other than the good of their child.
The human mind is given some authority to identify and declare certain things: whether a man's pattern of behavior conforms to a definition of a "thief" or not. Whether or not a guy's patter of behavior conforms to a definition of "total loser" or not. Very often, we have the capacity to identify and make a mental judgment, but we have no authority to act on them. And it's tactless to call people names.
So just because I can see that someone is a thief, i can't really sentence him to jail. I CAN call the police, though.
Sorry for the laggy replies. Life as a vicar is... busy. Peace.
THANK YOU FOR REPLYING. I would have been quite sad if I never got an answer.
Delete1) No. I focused a lot on the tree and the knowledge, but Adam and Eve did evil in that they disobeyed God. This does not change the theory at all. The evil thing they did did not come from the tree, it came from the Devil--he tricked them. Does that make them any less at fault? No. Does it make God at fault for making a trick-able creation? Nope. If anything, it proves the theory even more, because Satan rebelled against God (in order to be able to do that, he had to know be able to think he could be better than God, which I would call the knowledge of good and evil) and then got Adam and Eve to rebel against God by packaging the rebellion as something that God would want them to do. (that's quite a lot of speculation, but I'd like to think it's... logical speculation.)
2) My argument is that all the judgment that humans make (in all their respective positions) should be the decision that God would make, or our best approximation of the decision God would make. Now, can we know "what Jesus would do"? Not explicitly--the Bible doesn't talk a bit about abortion, but we believe that's wrong because the Bible DOES talk about murder, and we fit abortion under that category.
So yes, God gives us authority to make judgments, but why would we even TRY to judge when we can just ask God, who is the final judge?
Hey, sorry I've been absent for so long. Vicarage keeps me busy.
Delete1) I guess what I'm trying to get at is... the source of the fall is not the "knowledge of good and evil," but "disobedience towards God's Word." The knowledge, the capacity to know, is not bad to have in and of itself. Rather, it is the disobedience that got it to adam and eve that started the whole mess.
Maybe this is what you're saying anyway, and I should go re-read your argument. I'm trying to avoid the conclusion that "knowledge or the capacity to know = a sin." That conclusion would seem to contradict, uh, the entire book of Proverbs.
Rather, knowledge, wisdom, "knowing good and evil" are: good gifts from God, for use in God-pleasing ways: but they are also gifts that could be turned into idols if we use them in displeasing ways.
Satan's rebellion was not neccesarily becuase he had the _capacity_ to know good and evil, but because of what he did with it--he arrogated to himself a position that was not given to him. Similarly, we misuse God's gifts if we use them in ways that He did not give us authority to use them.
In this way, it is not God-pleasing to seek knowledge of any sort that would arrogate ourselves as the ultimate judge of right and wrong. There are philosphies that do this, and they are... wrong. On the other hand, there are philosophies that begin with the fear of the Lord: putting ourselves in the right place. To me, this seems to indicate that it is possible to pursue the gift of wisdom in a God-pleasing fashion, so long as it begins with the fear of the Lord.
2) So in answer to your question about "why even try to judge?" I would say this: Judge, where you are given authority to judge. Don't judge, where it is not given to you to judge.
No one has authority to judge the state of a man's soul except Christ alone. This is not an authority given to us.
Similarly, it is not given to us men to decide, declare, speak into being what is right and wrong. This authority belongs to God, who made the heavens and the earth.
We do still have to figure out what God's decision are though. It's no use to us if God authoritatively decided that bacon is okay to eat, but then we don't know about it and can't act based on that. To some extent, we must understand what is spoken to us in God's Word. The authority to CREATE the decision isn't ours, but someone among men still has to figure out what God's decision was. That means judging, taking a final stand for something.
You know you're good when you agree with God's judgment. That means you're not arrogating to yourself the authority to judge, but you are in agreement with the One who DOES have the authority.
When we repent of our sins? we're agreeing with God's judgement. When believe we are forgiven? we are agreeing with God's judgment that we are made righteous for the sake of Christ. It's not something that comes from us, but something that comes from God to us.
THEN, in the secular realm, God gives us a good deal of freedom to judge things. What pair of socks to wear today? That authority is given to you. You don't need to check with God on that one.
A magistrate in a civil court has to judge somehow. It's his job. He judges according to the authority given to him by the state. In order to do his job, he has to judge using the authority given to him.
The question is more like this: where are we called to judge, and where are we called to take a back seat and let God do the judging?
This allows for us to still, always, beginning and end, make decisions based on God's will. But it frees us up from trying to find a rationale in God's Word for what color socks to wear each day.
The caps in my previous post were expressing excitement--I'm SO glad we can discuss again! Brennick told me you were busy. Good for you!
Delete1) This distinction that you bring up between the evil being in breaking God's command versus knowing good and evil is significant. I just kind of rushed by it without even knowing it!
I fully believe that Adam and Eve did evil by breaking God's command. My question is, why did God make that command? I would argue that, because God is good and perfect, he created us without the knowledge of good and evil because it is BETTER, GOOD for humans not to have that knowledge. Why would God do anything that is not good for us? And so while you're correct in saying that having the knowledge is not SIN, being in that condition of knowing is still not how God would have us be, it's not ideal, it's not the best.
Here, I could theoretically start blaming God for making us fallible. Why would God create us as the crown jewel of creation, but not give us the knowledge of good and evil? Is He selfish? Jealous? But I won't, because that's not my place, and I fully believe that He did what He did for our benefit. (we would surely die if we ate of the tree--notice, it doesn't say that we'll surely die if we know good and evil, but if we EAT, breaking God's command)
This does bring up one more question from my theory, though. I proposed that there were two types of value judgments, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe even BEFORE knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve were making judgments about good and evil (though if there was no evil, they technically would only be making judgments about good, better, and best). What do you think?
2)I'm so glad that you used the sock analogy. It brings us to the subject of adiaphora, right? What color socks to wear is neither commanded nor forbidden, right? Wearing red socks or un-matching ones or striped or toed or whatever contains no good or evil.
Above, I said that we should try to make the decision that God would make. Well, God doesn't wear socks. At least, it's not revealed that He does. So it's ridiculous for us to look to God for advice on what socks to wear--just like it might have been ridiculous for Adam to ask God, "Is "giraffe" a good name for this animal?" God just said that man should rule over the earth--He didn't say how. The how didn't matter because Adam and Eve couldn't do anything evilly.
So what God says nothing about, we have to consider neither good nor evil. Flush toilets, types of government, power lines, paper or plastic... none of these are inherently good or evil. BUT we can MAKE them good or evil depending how we "rule over/dominate" them.
When Jesus came, he showed us that not only WHAT we do is evil, but also HOW we do it is evil. Looking at a woman is neither right or wrong. Looking at a woman LUSTFULLY is wrong. There is nothing wrong with taking out the speck in your brother's eye, but it IS wrong if you do it BLINDLY, with a plank still in your own.
I believe that choosing socks is an opportunity to test your motives, HOW we are doing what we do. Do we pick our clothes to impress others? Are we ashamed of our naked bodies, which God has made? Do I have 100 pairs of socks while my brother only has three?
So when we are called to judge WHAT to do, I believe that we are also called to judge ourselves in HOW we do it. And the best way to judge ourselves is to think, "What would God think of this?" The answer will always turn us from considering questions of what (color, pattern, toes or none) to questions of how (selfishly, caringly, daringly, compassionately, with a servant's heart, lovingly), which, as said above, I believe we were never intended to have to think about. Maybe.
Were not any found to post but this one Boyer? Truly, I have seen such great timely-posting even in all of Brennickdom (That's a roundabout paraphrase of Luke 17:18/ 7:9 way of saying "thanks for posting!"). So Hello and welcome. I don't know you personally (unless we've met once and it has, regrettably, escaped my mind), so I do feel the need for three introductory thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) “I am not trying to offend you.” Plain text on the internet is vulnerable to being misinterpreted, often negatively and against the author's intention. I will afford your words and tone the best possible construction, take nothing personally, so that together we may reason in peace. I hope that you will afford the same grace to me, and others here. Because:
2) “We are here to reason together, about ideas, not personalities.” As iron sharpens iron, as the faithful strengthen one another in the faith, so too we rational creatures will attempt to sharpen one another's reason. Very often this reasoning happens in the form of argument. This means that, from time to time, we may find ourselves in some form of disagreement (::le gasp!::). I hope that our mutual respect for one another can lead us to friendly, happy arguments, a common endeavor in the pursuit of the same Truth.
3) For the sake of clarity, brevity, and respecting everyone's reading time... I will hereforeward try to be as straightforward as possible when responding to arguments. I have no way of knowing whether you're the sort of person who will take personal offense at being disagreed with, but given the irenic nature of your post, I suspect that you are quite capable of separating argument from personalities. You're probably aware that you're surrounded by many people who are not quite as practiced in this regard. You needn't apologize to me for making an argument that might disagree with mine—let's just talk about ideas, and reason together towards Truth. Otherwise, we're going to spend a lot of time apologizing. Fair?
Enough caveat. My actual response:
Paradoxes exist, in many things. But (paradoxically?), not everything is a paradox. Which means that the mediating position between two things isn't always be the right answer.
For example, Fred says that 11*11 = 1111, and George says that 11*11= 22. They can't agree. They both assert that these true. Ron comes in, sees the two assertions, and suggests that they find a balance between them to settle their differences. So they add their answers, divide by two (1133/2), and end up with 11*11 = 566.5. It's a balanced, moderated position. But it's wrong. Mathematically wrong. Hermione walks in, and reminds them that “if two people disagree, one or both of them have to be wrong.” She took Arithmancy. She, unlike the others, learned how to solve this sort of problem, how to set up the question and find the answer. +121 points for Gryffindor.
The same applies for other, non-math questions. Aristotle says that the philosophy of the West is best, while Confucius say that the philosophy of the East is best. We hear the words “West vs. East,” assume that they're opposites, and seek for a moderating position. But that's based on an invalid premise, because the philosophies of East and West are not opposites of one another. They approach similar questions perhaps, but from very, very different angles. If we try to find the middle position between the West's activity and the East's inactivity, we end up doing neither of them very well.
Thank you for the PSA about [not] being offended. I appreciate your graciousness and intend to be gracious also.
DeleteI do, though, encourage all y'all to NOT be afraid to be personal, if for no other reason than that when people become deeply entrenched in relationships, they experience the manifestation of IDEAS on a deeper level. Disagree with me if you wish, though I tend to more often be in your shoes--telling people not to take things so personally--but know that now, I am a different person for having interacted with you, and my ideas have changed, even if the change is just in that you are associated with certain ones. To put it shortly, I like your capacity and admonition for [professionalism/discipline/clear-headedness/idea-centeredness], but I respond by advising us not to underestimate the power of relationship.
I take your point about balance not always leading to the right answer. As you state below, balance is an inadequate word to describe what I mean. It's more along the lines of keeping tension. For example, the image of Jesus on the cross--is anything LESS godly? Beaten, defeated, FORSAKEN by God, yet triumphant, glorious, and fully God. There is tension. If an average man walked by and saw Jesus with no knowledge of anything else, God would be the last thing he associated with that MAN on the cross. But even though God forsook Him in every conceivable (and inconceivable!--Princess Bride) way, Jesus was still God. It's easy to just let the tension go, but what I mean by balance is to keep the tension in all things, not permitting ourselves to go too far one way without remembering that there is an opposite direction.
Relationships: duly noted. But for the sake of caution and respect, I think I'll wait until I know you a bit better to start commenting on your personal life, publicly, over a blog. Until then, the relationship can begin over a nice cup of ideas.
DeleteSome things are constantly in a balance, in tension, in paradox. Yes. I agree. Yet many times the relationship between things is more complicated than the word "balance" lets on. It's a good start to the right idea, but the term is inadequate. There are better terms for what you're describing.
One of them is "justice." We're going to encounter that term (I hope) as we move forward in the lectures. Another one of the terms I think is helpful when describing the tensions and nuances of the relationships between things is "order." It is rightly ordered for a man to love a woman. It is not rightly ordered for a duck to love a mongoose. There's no question of balance in the comparison here, but rather I'm saying in the "right ordering" schema of how God designed the world, it makes sense for human men and women to love one another, and it makes zero sense for ducks to love mongeese. It is not just, or well ordered, for the latter to happen.
We can't describe the relationship there as a "balance" ... and somehow balance out relationships between men/women with duck/mongeese in a give-and-take tension. There are NO duck/mongeese relationships. I sure hope not.
Your point is very well taken, that we ought not forget things. You are correct in bringing this up. I would say the same thing, but phrase it more precisely, and say: "we ought not mis-emphasize one part of the natural order of things at the expense of another, for doing so might mis-represent the just ordering of the world."
Enough.
Similarly, Trying to “balance” Adam and Eve ends up with... something weird. In my experience, relationships work best when men act like good men and women act like good women. They are not opposites, but counterparts, help-meets, beings that fit together. Women are not helped when men cease to be men and start acting like women. There is a difference between “reconciliation” and “compromise.” Continuing the example, “reconciliation” lets men be men and women be women and teaches them to behave rightly towards one another within their natures. Compromise teaches them to reject their given natures, and try to find the moderating point between the two.
ReplyDeleteI might also invoke the phrase “proper distinction,” and contrast it with the term “balance,” because the semantic difference between the terms ends up being crucial in the task of discovering Truth. Maybe this is what you really meant by the word “balance,” maybe not, I don't know, but... there's a thought to ponder.
If I may change lanes (but not gear), I'd gently suggest that “past” and “present” aren't as opposite as they first seem. The people, ideas, attitudes, and events of the past are what led us to the people, ideas, attitudes, and events in the present. They are inextricably connected—not as opposites, but as a sort of continuum. Understanding history, where you came from, leads you to understand the present in a way that you can't get by looking at the present all by itself. You learned something about your girlfriend—for better or for worse—when you went to where she came from and met her parents. Something you probably wouldn't have known just from interacting with her. History is the same way.
So you are dead right when you say that ought not romanticize history. The framers of the constitution, the Lutheran confessors, the greco-roman statesmen of old (for example)... they all had solutions to enduring problems. Their solutions were good solutions, and their solutions may lend insight to today's problems—which are often the same enduring problems from of old. We can learn from those men. If you had to work on your freethrows, would you ask your big brother (who doesn't know much about bball), or Michael Jordan? Let's say that MJ lived 3000 years ago, wrote a book and called it “On Freethrows,” and the rules for freethrows haven't changed at all since then. You'd ask your brother, but you're probably get more out of MJ's book, because he was the greatest freethrower history has seen yet.
So what does a perfect relationship between man and wife look like? (Hint: Sunday school answer!) When men are acting like men, they are strong, protective, and dominant. When women are acting like women, they are accepting, capable, open, and respectful (see Proverbs 31)--a perfect complement. (Ladies, forgive me for talking about you. I don't mean to trample on you, so I'm so sorry that I am.) Why then would man die for wife? It goes against everything masculine to submit one's ultimate self so that something weaker can survive. Like I said above, when Jesus looked LEAST godly was really His greatest moment. As it benefits God to act like (even BECOME) man, so it benefits woman to act like man and man to act like woman. Does this make any sense?
DeleteAbout history... I don't disagree with a word you said. But what's the point if we spend all our time figuring out how we got here and what the enduring problems are and have none left for GOING somewhere and SOLVING the enduring problems?
Men and women: I agree. But it's larger topic, and a different topic, than I was planning on getting into here. So... 'nuff said.
DeleteHistory: Yes. We would not have a rightly-ordered approach to study, if we a) spent all our time studying and no time acting. It would also be dis-ordered, I believe, b) to think of history in only pragmatic/utilitarian terms, and its usefulness for our lives today. Either way is ..."imbalenced," or as I would say, "disordered."
The best ordered approach to study, especially the study of history, is hear the wisdom of the ages on enduring things. Wisdom regarding enduring things are worthwhile in study, worthwhile in action "today," worthwhile in interpersonal relationships, and worthwhile in our broader vocation to love our neighbor as a citizen.
So yes, I agree with you, but I don't want to "imbalance" things by studying history only for the sake of it's use today. Do you see what I'm saying? It's a slight change in emphasis (and maybe I'm just misreading you), but a change in emphasis is a change in substance. So... game on.
*imbalanced
DeleteThis bothered me before.
We're not going to marginalize or romanticize the past, but look in it for a few things: a) how we got to be who we are and b) answers to enduring problems c) a way of thinking about things that we, in our provincial present-tense-ism wouldn't have thought of before. All of these are obnoxiously relevant to our lives today, yet require humility when listening to our elders who went before us in time. If we come to history with the presupposed attitude that its insights are useless, old, or irrelevant... we are not likely to learn much. The same rules might apply here as when we listen to our grandparents complain about how coffee was better in the 50's when people had morals. Smile, nod, show respect, hear what they have to say for what it's worth, and you might even learn something from time to time that bears fruit in your own life. If we come to grandpa with a specific question “how do I get a job” he might have a specific (irrelevant) answer (because there weren't computers then). Yet: You might also learn a good deal from hearing the virtues and vices in the story of how grandpa got a job back in the day. The specifics may have changed from then to now, but enduring things like virtue and vice... have not.
ReplyDeleteI've used the phrase “enduring problems” or “enduring things” a couple times now. It belies my answer to question number 5 which I posted. Some things change, and some things do not. Human nature does not change. The nature of the universe is consistent (this is how we can do “science”). Aristotle (for example) made an argument about the nature of a human being, and that argument still holds true, even if it was written 3000 years ago. Voltaire made a different argument about human nature that I believe is always wrong, even though it has stuck around.
So... I suppose I'm agreeing with you that we shouldn't romanticize history, but disagreeing that we should “look for what's relevant for today.” It's a deeper question than that. I'd think we'd be best served to look for what's relevant all the time, across all of history. Not what is relevant for today, but what is “relevant for enduring problems and unchanging human nature.”
turn here.
ReplyDeletewhere?
HERE!
anyway, yeah, i pretty much agree with Keaton. tradition and all that. some history is interesting but like... whatever. some history has a ton of substance and teaches you a lot about human nature. you can read that in histories of people and original documents of law codes (ex. code of hammurabi told you what the ancient babylonians were like), or you can learn that from the way people told stories and the sorts of things they highlight and value or criticize in their writing. it shows you what's good about people and what's bad about people. and if people have thought about that the same way since then. those opinions, changing or not, describe the way things came to be the way they are today.
does that seem right to you?
It does. Any thoughts on what "enduring things" are?
DeleteFor an example Arnn brought up in the lecture, human beings have struggled for literally ages (yes, a literal "literally"!) with the question: "what is the right way to do government?" and "why should we do the right thing, if we can get away with the wrong thing?" ...questions of ethics, justice, government, etc. Those are enduring questions, which haven't gone away. The empires of ages past have all had different approaches to answering these, and other questions.
That's so true--we can learn from WHAT people say and the WAY they say it. Human nature doesn't change (...or does it?!) but humans do. No two are the same. So even if two people live exactly parallel lives just at different times, the difference between them is still significant. It seems obvious, but I think it's amazing.
DeleteMy wife recently called this to my attention:
ReplyDeleteThe question and answer section is excellent. It discusses much of what has been talked about as well. I highly reccommend it, as he answers a couple questions regarding:
a) the purpose of studying history
b) why we study the West and not the East
Basically, I have failed before we have even begun, and by this I mean, I am only now catching up to the rest of you. Whups. So I have not a whole lot to contribute as of yet, except to say that I HATE cannonballs.
ReplyDeleteOh, and that I plan to be all caught up for class by next week. I never buy the book before class starts anyway.
You haven't failed! Watch the stuff and contribute whatever you can. Please don't feel intimidated--no one is grading you. Throw down some thoughts as you have them.
DeletePiera: Amen and amen.
DeleteSo as of now I have only watched 6 minutes (I think I started it Tuesday with all good intentions, but got distracted.) Now I will try to finish tonight and get a head start on next week...
ReplyDeleteFeeling the full weight of the law, I am determined to return later with a real post!
Lizzy Anne
Lizzy Anne! We'll let the one without sin cast the first stone. And He doesn't condemn you. Not for posting late on a blog. Throw down some thoughts as you have them; and we're happy to have you join us!
DeleteHi Liz!!!
Delete