Wisdom and teeth

Gentle readers, I had my wisdom teeth pulled --all four of them-- this weekend. Consequently, I've been mostly dead all weekend. I'll get a real post up as soon as I'm able. Y'all are welcome to please go ahead and post you own thoughts anyway. Thanks much.

-toothless.

Law, Gospel, and The Ordering Art

Aaron made an excellent observation in an earlier comment about how different fields of study are related, but ought to be distinguished. I was so excited I wrote something that really ought to be its own post. If you're busy and don't think you'll have time to read my ramblings, then skip this entry. But Aaron sparked some good thoughts.

Keaton, I think you go a step further than I do in what you say to Brennick. I say, "You're right, but work on explaining yourself better." I'm going to try to synthesize your long comments to mean that you say to Brennick "Your thought process is good, but you are not properly distinguishing between theology and other fields of study. In theology, most everything can be put in terms of Law and Gospel, but this is not true of all other fields of study." I have a complex thought in response to this.

You are right in that when we study nature, we are studying law, and that the Gospel is revealed to us in Scripture and Sacraments. But I would add to this that when we fully understand a field of study (say we learn ALL there is to know about chemistry), we realize that we don't really, truly understand it until we apply it to everything else. What good is chemistry is it doesn't lead us to questions about biology, sociology, geography, and theology? Not much. What I'm saying is this: when we study nature, we study law, but as the law (of a field of study) becomes more fully understood, so too its need for other fields of study in which to become manifest and applicable is shown. 

Yes! Every field of study is inter-related. Some things are good when their results are applied to other areas of study. For example, chemistry is pretty useful when it can be applied to medicine, nutrition, or the making of plastics. The Liberal Arts, classically understood, claim to be not only useful, but good things to study in and of themselves (i.e., knowing “Logic” makes you a better human being in general, not just a better maker of plastics). Yet at some point, someone has to ask the question: “How do we know how all these various disciplines are interrelated?” Stop. Think about that for a second. What art/discipline of study is the one that figures out the proper relationships between the others?

A random picture of a plane in a tree for variety.

How does chemistry relate to biology or physics, and how do all of those relate to medicine, ethics, or the art of making of pastries? We like it when biology can help inform the medical arts—this seems fitting. You and I might get suspicious when biology makes claims about the origin of life or intelligence, as this seems to be the domain of some other discipline of study. What happens when scientists, who don't know about how laws are made, begin doing something outside of their “jurisdiction,” making laws and ethical demands? (All of the sudden, you can't buy soda in quantities larger than 20oz. And it has to be “green” soda, or else you feel bad about yourself.) Firemen and policemen both serve the public, but it doesn't make sense to ask firemen to catch thieves, and have policemen put out fires. Each should stick to its own area of study, and help each others out as best it can.

So... yes. They are all related, and the question is: HOW are they all related? There is a need for an Art of putting all these many disciplines in their proper places. Not for the sake of restricting them, but for the sake of freeing the others to do their own jobs. What art is that? Can I go to college for a "figure everything out" degree?

Plato called it “philosophy” (φιλέω [love] σοφία [of wisdom]). Aristotle called it “the ruling art,” or “politics” (πολύ [many] τεχνὴ [arts]). Medieval scholasticism called it “theology,” because God rules over all arts (this ended up weakening specific theology, dealing with the relationship between God and man as expressed in scripture, but that's a different story for a different day). Today, there isn't one word for this “ordering art.” Philosophy, politics, political science, and theology all have specific meanings, as well as being used by oddballs like myself special “ordering art” ones from the past. (Shameless plug: Hillsdale college teaches lots of subjects, but the one it gets at best is training in this "ordering art" of trying to figure out how everything fits together.)

The question of how things are ordered is the question of wisdom. Solomon had it right when he says in Proverbs 1:7 “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Nothing is well ordered unless it is ordered firstly underneath God. That's where it started. Read the first four paragraphs of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, and you'll see an enduring description of the wisdom of this ordering art. Aristotle goes on to suggest... well, a lot of things.

There is a LOT to talk about here, and a lot we could go afield with. I've added some emphasis of my own in the text, so you know. Try reading it out loud if you find it hard to understand. That helps. (If your eyes glaze over and you lose interest...just... sorry. skip it, I guess.)

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart from the activities that produce them. Where there are ends apart from the actions, it is the nature of the products to be better than the activities. Now, as there are many actions, arts, and sciences, their ends also are many; the end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of economics wealth. But where such arts fall under a single capacity- as bridle-making and the other arts concerned with the equipment of horses fall under the art of riding, and this and every military action under strategy, in the same way other arts fall under yet others- in all of these the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate ends; for it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued. It makes no difference whether the activities themselves are the ends of the actions, or something else apart from the activities, as in the case of the sciences just mentioned. 

Aristotle teaching Alexander the Great how to be great. 

If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what is right? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is, and of which of the sciences or capacities it is the object. It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man. (Note: This isn't "politics" in the sense we think of today. No sir.) For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our inquiry aims, since it is political science, in one sense of that term. 

Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premises to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premises of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs. 

Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit. 

These remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be expected, and the purpose of the inquiry, may be taken as our preface. 

Oh man. There's so much to talk about here. I brought this up for the sake of laying a framework to think about, and I'm going to try to stay on topic and answer Aaron's question, but it's going to have to be in a very roundabout way.  Aaron continued to ask:

What does Law do? Shows us our need for a savior (Gospel). It doesn't SHOW us the Gospel, but it shows the NEED for one. This goes with my earlier interest in paradox and balance/cooperation.

How do you react to that, Keaton? Do you think that, if in nature we see law, then the law of nature can show a need for the gospel?

I say that every art, inquiry, action and pursuit which man does falls underneath the broad umbrella category of "the Law." Whether the teachers of the law specialize in bridle-making, chemistry, medicine or strategy, they still all ultimately try to serve some good for human beings. Even the art of theft, for example, serves a twisted "good" ...for the thief only. The art of war? The twisted "good" of conquest, or the more justifiable "good" of protecting a nation.

Aristotle points out that the ultimate pinnacle of "why anyone does anything" is "to be happy," or "to have their nature fulfilled." He uses the word "happiness" not just as a momentary moment of pleasure, but as a state of being that fulfills our nature (τέλος). We won't be happy until we are living according to our nature. That's why we do things. It's in human nature to hunger for food and to eat... so... we make food. We grow food, cook it, and throw parties. Sometimes we are twisted by sin and we try to steal food. Or we eat food we're not supposed to. In the long run, that doesn't make us happy, but in the short term it seems like a good idea.

Sin, entering the world through one man

Sin entered the world and gave us this weird quality wherein we cannot actually ever fulfill our nature. We are not good at being human beings. We cannot get back to Eden, which was made for us. We cannot be happy in this life, because we are qualitatively broken. For all the arts and activities and inquires, mentioned above, they can only attempt to get us to fulfill our nature, but they won't actually get us all the way. Aristotle even goes on to point out how very very improbable it is for someone to get even close to fulfilling their actual nature, because everyone seems to screw up along the way (although he did think it was theoretically possible. That's what he gets for being a pagan).

We know, revealed to us in scripture, that this is because of sin, and the only place we will be truly fulfilling our nature... is in heaven. When we live, not in the qualitatively broken flesh of Adam, but in the perfect flesh of Christ Jesus which we were born into when we were Baptized.

Fun Fact: the word "perfect" is related to the Greek word τέλος: as in, "has reached their τέλος, their end, their perfect state, in which they are acting perfectly in accord with what they were created to be. Only then, only when we are given new flesh, birth from above, can we actually be happy. 

That said, the Law is still useful. For lots of things. As I learned it in my catechism class, the law has three ways. As a curb, a mirror, and a guide. The existence of a curb is self-evident, because we've seen the usefulness of every art and action and inquiry above as eventually showing us how we ought to live. It can't keep us from sinning, but it does show us how we ought to live. Bridle-makers ought to make bridles, because the horses need them. The horsemen ought to do well in their jobs, so as to perform the commands of the strategist well. The strategist should defend the country well, so as to defend the life, liberty, and pursuit of τέλος-fulfilling for the people in the country. The curb doesn't do it for you, but it does teach you what to do. That there is a good thing, a nature, that we ought to do, but we can't do it. 

Then, a mirror shows you your sin, your utter failure to fulfill your τέλος. Everyone agrees we ought to live according to righteousness (justice), but the big question is why we never actually live justly. Plato made a pretty good argument in The Republic that living justly is better than living un-justly, because living in justice was better for our natures, for our souls. That assumes that we're not able to live justly. Everyone knows we're sinners. It's a self-evident observation, a law written on our hearts, accessible even to philosopher pagans:

For when Gentiles (like Aristotle), who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.  --  Romans 2:14-16

A guide shows you your need for a savior. It doesn't show you which savior, and it doesn't deliver that savior to you, but it does show you that you need something. That's why there are so many other religions out there--the natural law written on our hearts shows us how to live according to nature, that we are incapable of living that way, and that we need something else. That's a natural religion, as natural to us as the law written on our hearts.Without the revealed word of God, it's not terribly specific. There are other gods who offer a salvation of sorts (they are, of course, false gods offering no real hope). The Law shows you your need for A gospel, but like you said, doesn't point you to THE gospel--Christ Jesus crucified for the forgiveness of sins. 

So in answer to your question... Yes, we've got to distinguish between Law and Gospel. The Law condemns us for our sins in the sternest possible way, and the sweet Gospel of Christ forgives us of all of those same sins. A Lutheran theologian by the name of C.F.W. Walther wrote an excellent book about this very topic, and I highly recommend it if you're interested in learning the right relationship between Law and Gospel. 

As Beautiful and Terrible as the dawn

 In fact, after a time  There are laws for how we ought to treat one another in this life, and how to organize our arts, inquiries, actions and pursuits. That we ought to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Love our neighbors as ourselves. The Law is a beautiful and terrible thing, and we are bound to learn it, to heed the instruction of the Lord in right relationships... taught either in scripture or taught by the law written into nature. Both ways are good for us to learn. Particularly, as it turns out, when we approach the question of the "ordering art." It's been called politics, philosophy, theology, political science, polititheosophy, etc. The bible calls it Wisdom, and occasionally the word "Torah". The Law. The ordering art.

For the purposes of this discussion here, I'd suggest that we're learning about the Law, not the gospel, and that that's okay, as long as we learn it int he context of its right relationship to the gospel. None of what we learn here nullifies Christ's work on the cross, or diminishes the primacy of the gospel in our lives. It teaches us to love our neighbor in a depth of wisdom obtained from our forebears in a great conversation over the ages about the Law written on our hearts. Learning this will make you appreciate the gospel more. Ultimately, Christ Jesus shows that God is perfectly righteous, the source of all justice. Christ lived righteously, died in our place, suffering God's right condemnation of our sin, and justly shows the magnanimously gracious love of God towards humanity.

In the beginning... (2)

Western Heritage - Lecture 2

Jerusalem

....בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ

"Introduction and Thesis"
Dr. Kalthoff (KAL- toff) teaches history, sometimes the history of science. In college, I went to church with him and his family. He's a solid confessional Lutheran, a responsible historian... pretty much a brick. So I'm pretty happy they picked him to be the one to teach this portion of the class.

But notice: while he did sneak in some Law and Gospel into the lecture... it wasn't the point of the lecture. It wasn't the thesis. Why not? The thesis (of the whole course, really) addresses a different question than "How can a man be saved?" The question is: how have the Hebrew sacred scriptures informed the West's culture, civilization, and thinking? This is not a question of the kingdom of the right hand, but a question of the kingdom of the left.*  ** We are citizens of both, and it seems self-evident that we ought to seek wisdom according to our vocation as a citizen of the left-hand kingdom. Some of those wise insights into the nature of man, laws, or the world come first from the Hebrews, written in their scriptures. The scriptures are worth studying  not only because they point to Christ, but also because they have a good deal of wisdom. So as you maybe find the time to read through all of these texts which you already know again: look for secular insights, not just theological ones.

The Nature of Man
If I were to ask you whether human beings were all equal in some way, you'd probably say "yes." Why? What's the basis of that? Not every culture has always affirmed this. Caste systems, slavery, eugenics, etc., have all suggested that the value of human life changes from person to person: A sudra was not equal to a brahmin, an african slave was better than an irish one, human beings with some traits were better that those without, etc. Ancient cultures did this sort of thing too, usually in how their ruler was a fundamentally better being than anyone else. Think of how Pharaoh or Caesar were often worshiped as gods, demigods, or close-enough-to-gods. The Hebrew understanding of the nature of a human being was different. Every human being is equal in one respect--created in the image of God--and therefore deserving of a different kind of dignity. While not everyone is equal in ability or inheritance, every human being is equally human, and that deserves some kind of respect.***

*** What degree, and what kind of respect? That's a different question. Slavery is wrong, because it denies a human the dignity due to their being as a human. Being a servant is... sort of like being a slave. But it's not wrong because you're being paid, right? Thieves shouldn't be encouraged in their thievery, yet treating a man convicted of theft like an animal also denies the dignity due to a human being.

This idea is the fundamental basis of "human rights." Dr. Kalthoff made the statement that "democracy wouldn't be possible without this idea." True. There's got to be some basis for why human beings are equal. The strongest argument for human rights comes from human beings as created equal, underneath, and by, a transcendent God (if you haven't read this, now's a great time).

This idea came first from these weirdo Hebrews. Later cultures developed their own understanding of the dignity of a human being ("Athens" has its own argument, but we'll get to that later), but the one from Jerusalem was the first and the best. It has withstood the test of time. To us Americans, this idea is obvious. It's built into our founding documents, and implicit in how we think. Our culture has inherited this idea implicitly from our forefathers in the great conversation, and it's built into the way we're raised to think.

From the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . 

So if anyone ever asks you what makes the Hebrews or the Old Testament so special out of all the middle-eastern tribes from ancient history, point this out. The concept of human rights started there.****

**** Bible-haters will of course point to a bunch of random verses they googled about slavery and women. You'd have to deal with each one as they come. But as a broad blanket statement, I'm willing to suggest that every one of the OT laws, when understood in the cultural context, ends up showing more respect to human dignity than the contemporaneous laws of other nations.

The Nature of Laws
Notice the the narrative from Samuel. Saul, or David, may the king, but neither of them are the source of all the laws. They are not above the laws. Laws come from God. The laws apply to all human beings equally, even the king. Saul tries to make up his own laws, and is punished for it. David breaks the laws, and he is held responsible for his own actions. Compare to other ancient near-eastern laws, where the word of their king/pharaoh/monarch/ruler became the law. If Pharaoh said he got to stay up late and eat ice cream, he got to stay up late and eat ice cream. It didn't matter that you couldn't, and that that wasn't fair. He was Pharaoh, you were not.

Today, if I were to ask you whether laws should be consistently enforced and apply to everyone, what would you say? Probably "yes, provided that they are fair laws." This sort of concept of justice comes, in part, from the Hebrew contribution to the great conversation. The scriptures spoke first (John 1:1 anyone?). David and Saul might be kings with great power, influence, and honor, but they are equally subject to the same laws of God. Some laws were written for only the people of Israel (no pork), others were written into the fabric of reality and apply to all human beings equally. *****

Imagine trying to convince someone that they shouldn't kill in your town, when they didn't even believe that killing was wrong anywhere. The laws we make for our country, state, town, communities, work best if they are based somehow on universal laws. And if everyone were able to obey universal laws, then there wouldn't be a need to enforce community laws. There will be more on this later, to be sure. The Hebrew contribution is that the universal Laws which apply to man's actions transcend man's design, but come from God. Every society that has laws needs to find some transcendent source for those laws, even if they have to make their pharaoh a god in order to do it.


The Nature of the World
Speaking of universal laws, what about physics? Physics describes the laws that apply to matter and energy. The creation account indicates a creator, obviously, but it also implies a consistency in that which was created, because all of creation is ordered under the creator. The rules of physics exist because they were written that way. Gravity exists. The seas have been given limits.*  The cosmology of the Old Testament had room for a consistency in the laws of nature... in fact, it demanded a consistency in the laws of nature. Other cosmologies in the ancient world did not have room for that. An animist would say that a rock fell because the god inside the rock wanted to fall. But later that rock god might want to roll away, or fly like an eagle. Rock and roll.

Now, there are plenty of people who deny the existence of God, and they have a case for that, and I imagine we'll get to that case sometime around the 18th century. For now, it's enough to point out with Fr. Kalthoff that the cosmological assumptions of the Hebrew scriptures laid the foundations for a rational, scientific inquiry into the laws of nature, because nature was ordered with a consistency available to mankind's intellect.

The End Result
The Hebrews weren't terribly influential in the "global" schema, prior to Christianity. There were plenty of other more influential cultures at the time. But the enduring observations from the Hebrew scriptures have lasted longer as a coherent cosmology than any of their contemporaries. We can see the echoing implications of a created natural order even in our own unconscious assumptions about political equality, about universal laws, and a consistency in nature. Ultimately, the Old Testament is a religious text, and points to Christ as the savior. There are other good things that we've inherited from the scriptures as well.

With Milk and Honey Blest (2)

Dear Friendly Friends,

Although Dr. Kalkohowdoyouspellit didn't expressly say it, this is what he meant when he referred to Hebrew legacy as "the wellspring of the western heritage": A massive amount of the Western Culture took place when Papal office etc ran the show. Kings would be kissing the pope's butt left and right. If the Pope was on your side, you had the power. Aside from the fact that the popes misused their power and it eventually disintegrated, the idea is still the same: a theocratic monarchy. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Constantine was the one who instated the Christian-focused Byzantine empire? Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman emperor, wanted to be akin to David. In other words, The HRE was an attempt at mirroring the Hebrew Legacy. It clearly didn't turn out all that great (what the lecture pointed out as "going against God's plan", but the thought-process was the same. Hence, the majority of Western Culture came as a part of the church. Michelangelo? Christian. Bach? Christian. Beautiful architecture, art, music, etc all came because of the Church.

What I am interested to hear about, however, is how the Egyptians fit into the above scenario. Was theirs a theocratic monarchy too? Or rather, what elements of the Hebrew nation were the "wellspring" for Egypt?

Dr. K read from the Bible, "to obey is better than to sacrifice." So then, does that mean that if I could live perfectly and obey all the commandments, that'd be better than receiving Christ's sacrifice? On that same train of thought, it occurred to me that the way this applies now could be "Christ obeyed, so that we no longer have to sacrifice."

Just another random sidethought to contribute to my firth paragraph, Dr. K said "the applicability of God's moral truths" helped create order in government etc. That started off with America, did it not? We were the seat of Western Culture for quite some time. And now... we've fallen from obeying God's commands by straying away from that moral truth (by trying to make truth relative). So.... yes.


From the quiz....
"True or False: In the account of creation recorded in the book of Genesis, the Hebrew word for “formless” rhymes with the Hebrew word for “empty or void,”which further underscores the omnipotence of God’s action."

I got 12/13 on the quiz. what does "underscore" mean? Doesn't that mean... degrade? As in, the rhyme degrades God's glory?


Also, Dr. K's head was on the constant swivel and he seemed kind of antsy. Keaton, was he one of the teachers who moved around a lot in class?


-Which We Made Up Ourselves

Lecture 1 Response

Hello everyone,

My original plan of listening to this on Sunday and then commenting Monday was interrupted by my getting of a job, along with other things. I might be more punctual now.

I really appreciate that Dr. Arnn defined so many terms for us. I find that the background knowledge of latin/etymology of terms also helped me understand what he meant. For example, when singing in latin, "Christus Natus" means "christ child," I think. Or, as Dr. Arnn pointed out, the word "college" come from the same root word as "colleagues." I wouldn't be surprised if these courses got into mentioning the Trivium and how useful latin/greek/hebrew/ancient languages can be for learning and understanding... well, anything.

I'm also not surprised that he got to mentioning Winston Churchill, I hope/expect him to get into why Churchill was so great. Or rather, just as far as why ALL of the old people are so awesome.

I was kind of noticing that His theme of "the law of nature and nature's God" kind of boiled down to "Law" (athens) and "God" (jerusalem). Which makes me wonder, how far of a stretch would it be to say that this could be similar to Law and Gospel? As far as, God created, and there's order to His world that it helps to know. Though, in that case, Dr. Arnn would have it in the order of Gospel-Law, due to order that the events took place in history. I can definitely see how Christ could and hopefully will follow from where Dr. Arnn started, in the pattern of Gospel-Law-Gospel. Or something like that. What do you think?

Also, I'm also very enthused to see how his "choose your own reality" comment unfolds. Perhaps there will be discussion on how to deal with that attitude of relative truth. Just disprove it pretty immediately with contradictory evidence? I'd be very interested to hear more on that discussion! Aaron, if you ever got around to reading Craig Parton's book, he talks about that specifically for a bit in chapter 2.

Now, I've got to go to work, but I look forward to reading everyone else's comments/posts... tonight. Or tomorrow morning?

Western Heritage, Lecture 1

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:

1. Watch the appointed video over the weekend. Take notes. Read the material given on their list to read. Ponder.
2. 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. 
3. Respond to any questions that arise from within the course material itself,* or from my own questions to you.**
4. 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.

1. Why is a course on the Western Heritage needed, for you as a) a human being, and b) as a citizen?
2. Do your best to explain what the Western Heritage is. What is this "Great Conversation" about, given what you understand so far? 
3. Does history go in cycles (peak vs. trend), or does it progress (like technology, wherein iPhone > 56k modem)? Why or why not?
4. "Athens" and "Jerusalem" made two claims. What were they? (In the video, it's somewhere around the 30:00 minute mark.)
5. 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?
6. 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?
7. 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.
8. 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

Summer Reading

Gentle reader, you may have noticed that blog entries have heretofore lapsed into cyberspace. That is because the previous use for this blog vanished when college classes began. Yet another opportunity has arisen, and I hereby rededicate this blog to a new expression of it's same purpose.

The original purpose is stated above: "Listening in on the Great Conversation." Simply put, throughout the vast reaches of time, mankind has reasonably mused about the nature of the world, of mankind, of God, and the nature of truth, goodness, and beauty. Written across history there exists a kind of a "conversation" between thinkers of all kinds: philosophers, poets, theologians, statesmen, and common men, discussing and developing ideas and answers to persistent questions. These have stored up for us their great conversation, and we have the opportunity to answer to learn from their accumulated wisdom, and have a sort of "conversation" of our own about their ideas.

As I believe will be demonstrated in time, this is not an impractical activity. Within the company of the great conversationalists we are given much wisdom regarding who we are, why we do the things we do, and how we can be better human beings. Participation in the great conversation is not the highest good in human life, but can show us how to live poorly or live well; how to get along with your neighbors and get them to get along with you; and what sort of beings we are. If you think you know all of this already, then good for you. I challenge you to stick around--and I wager some dead philosopher or another will prove you wrong.

The particular opportunity I alluded to above manifests itself in a series of online lectures by learned men from my beloved alma mater: Hillsdale College. I learned a great deal from them, and learned most of all that I have much more to learn, and big shoes to fill if there are to be good men and women for the next generations. My brother and I decided that we should listen to these short orations and discuss the ideas contained therein. The courses were designed for those unable to attend a college where these ideas are taught. This is no substitute for actually cracking open a book. Yet, if we do our task well, this will only cultivate further reading, discussion, and prudent application of their ideas into our lives.

There are a goodly number of courses offered at this point. I proposed that we begin with the course "History 101," as the foundational ideas therein help greatly in understanding the rest. Even if you, gentle reader, have had a course in history already, I hope the clarity of their insight may provoke new thoughts and foster constructive discussion among us. I also hope to provide some original source material to support the lectures given here, so our discussion can be had as intimately as possible with the ideas.

The plan so far:

1. Sign up for the course "History 101" here: https://online.hillsdale.edu/  and following the instructions.
2. Watch one video per week. Take notes. (The timing is subject to change--we might speed things up if we are able)
3. Read any posted source documents relating to the topics of the lecture.
4. Write an informal blog entry articulating your understanding of the ideas from that video. In can be as long or short as you want. Our intent is to learn, and very often the need to articulate an idea can nurture our understanding.
5. Comment and discuss the ideas as heard and read and written.
6. Repeat.

At first I planned this for only a few people whom I already know. Yet I understand that my brother wants to invite more to join in with us. That's great! So to you, unknown reader, be it known: If you comment regularly and charitably, I may give you authority to post your own entries on this blog. Until then, I'm counting on the discipline and willingness expressed by the spoken-with few to carry on a good conversation among us.

We will begin doing this by next week. I will watch the first video this weekend (likely June 1st, a Saturday). I will write my entry when able, probably the next couple days, so that conversation can sprout from a blog post about it. I'd like to see everyone else doing something similar. I understand that schedules are crazy, but if we're going to make this work, we've got to be disciplined, lest we fall into the abyss of internet amusements.

Peace be with you,
+VDMA
-Keaton

decepticon

This is from the 2002 APA ethical principles regarding human research, found in this psychology textbook that Emily is lending me:

"The use of deception. Psychologists can use deceptive techniques as part of the study only when two conditions have been met: (1) It is not feasible to use alternatives that do not involve deception, and (2) the potential findings justify the use of deception because of their scientific, educational, or applied value."

WHAT. This seems really weird to me. Perhaps 'deception' just has a negative connotation, but this still sounds vaguely unethical. Can you think of situations where this happens? What do you think about it?

Paper Assignment #1

Write a formal paper of no less than five (5) and no more than ten (10) pages. Do not pad it with extra fluff writing at the end to get it to the right length: have at least five pages of actual thoughts/proof. I will be able to tell. It must be double spaced, 1 inch margins on every side, and 12 pt. Times New Roman font. Use book/line numbers as you have been for in-line citations. Include pertinent bibliographic data as an extra page at the end (and no, it doesn't count as its own page. it's EXTRA). I'm not picky about the format for a bibliography. 

  In the first half of this paper you will articulate the ancient greek idea of virtue ("what does it mean to be a good human being"), citing examples from the text of the Odyssey generously to demonstrate their understanding of virtue and human nature. Use clues from what you've learned of their world (anthropology, gods, host/guest, bloody battles, to name a few...) to argue for why their understanding of virtue might be true. This part could be five pages all by itself.

 In the second half of your paper, you will interact with the elements you've outlined above, evaluating what you think of that idea. Use whatever sources you want to argue for or against various elements of their philosophy. Come to a conclusion about what good can be gained from reading this book, and why it's worth reading today.

Your rough draft is due before Christmas Day. Send me drafts anytime if you want my thoughts/edits/comments/etc. The final draft is due before the end of the year. I highly suggest outlining the paper first, as it will prevent you from rambling. 

-Keaton
        <><

Peace

Open in the underworld. Everyone is boasting about how they died, and then the suitors arrive and bemoan their whole suitor story. Everyone else just laughs. "Happy Odysseus!" they cry (130-225). Sorry, Antinous. You're still a jerk. This is hilarious.

"He wore a goatskin skullcap to cultivate his misery that much more" (250-256). Poor Laertes--that would make me miserable, too. Once again (although I'm sure you'll explain it), I don't understand why he tests Laertes--everyone else knows it's him, and it wouldn't stay a secret for very long. Anyway, Odysseus makes him feel like crap by telling him he looks like a slave, and he starts to cry, and then all three generations are reunited and it's wonderful (277-284).

Good language: "rumor the herald" (457). I suppose rumors are rather like that.

457-520: Everyone wants to kill Odysseus. 520-602: They change their minds. Then Athena grants them peace and it's over! It's pretty brilliant.

In answer to your previous questions, you probably wanted me to read this book because it's full of human nature, and the consistency of it, and really epic stuff and good and bad things. You're all about good and bad and justice and whatnot, and you wanted me to figure out what was good and what was bad and what was justice. A poem becomes epic when it is focused on a hero, is majestic, heroic, and of unusually great size (so says dictionary.com). I suppose a connotation would be that it has all of that stuff I've mentioned previously, and people really like it. I haven't heard of epics, really, other than Homer and like two other Greek things.

You also asked what I thought of Telemachus and his situation--I don't understand what you mean anymore. I don't remember what was even happening. SORRS.

The Great Rooted Bed

(I almost wrote 'The Great Rooted Bread." Mycelium.)

Excepting the certain circumstances, tricking someone who says they're your husband would have been a good idea. BUT PENELOPE. REALLY. WHAT IS THIS. I suppose the secret signs is a good verification system, though. An immovable bed (197-230). Cute. Anyway, then they do it, but they also talk for a really long time, which I also think is cute. At least they really like each other, and Odysseus doesn't go off and cry, like he did when he was with Circe. or Calypso. or both. Yeah being married.

Slaughter in the Hall

Although despite Odysseus revealing himself, at the dawn of book twenty-two, the suitors are suddenly very calm and collected. Then they are dead. Well, some of them--the others ask Odysseus for mercy, and they offer tribute and sacrifices. He kills them anyway--I don't know exactly how righteous anger works, but I don't know if I agree with this situation. I can't entirely figure it out. They were jerks. Now he's killing them. They don't exactly apologize, but they want to keep living... so they try to appease him. WHAT is the right thing to do here?

Then Athena tells Odysseus to man up (234-243).

"The attackers struck like eagles" (316). The fulfillment of the eagling. FINALLY.

Leodes, the nice one, dies anyway (324-341). He's not a boor, so I didn't quite understand it--until I remembered that he's a suitor, courting Penelope. Who is Odysseus' wife. Sooo he's not the happiest guy right now. It's too bad, though, that Nice Leodes dies. (I remember Knox mentioning it in the introduction.) But the steward and the bard live--they're only servants, forced into doing the suitors' bidding (345-401). I guess that makes sense, but it's sort of obnoxious, because Leodes was nice.

Then Odysseus says he needs his nurse (416-417), which is funny. Once all the suitors are dead, Odysseus rounds up the wenches, makes them clean up his bloody mess, and hangs them in the yard. It's brutal. I suppose it's Greek. Then he destroys Melanthius, and that is savage (471-504). "Manic fury" =/= righteous anger. Just because you're going to kill someone doesn't mean you have to merciless rip them apart.

Odysseus Strings His Bow

Oh, it never fails. Antinous pretends he doesn't want the bow--he doesn't want to shoot it, or win it, or anything (103-111). He does. It sounds like something that would happen today. I GUESS PEOPLE DON'T CHANGE. Wow. Homer is really making a statement right now. Well, I am. But Homer wrote this like a kajillion years ago, and a kajillion years later, people still do the same things. Jerks are jerks. Wives cry when their husbands go to war. Servants are loyal or disloyal ("No you're not. You're disloyal."). People are the same. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. I wonder why that is.

130-150: Poor Telemachus needs to work out more. Odysseus is just a beast, I guess.

163-167: To be noted later--Leodes loathes the suitors' ways.

Odysseus tells the swineherd and the cowherd that he's, you know, him, and they believe him and are super excited and still loyal. Why, then, did he not tell them earlier? It's the same with Penelope. Telemachus believed him. Why does he still tell stories to everyone?

Here's what's rather unnerving: the swineherd tells Eurycleia to stay away, especially if she or the other maids hear men moaning and groaning and screaming (425-431). UM.

Then, in lines 451-484, Odysseus reveals his amazing strength and identity and anger and whatnot, and it seems to build in anticipation of his wrath. IT IS EXCITING.

Portents Gather

portent (noun): a) an indication or omen of something about to happen, especially something momentous b) threatening or disquieting significance c)a prodigy or marvel

portent: Athena promises to help Odysseus get rid of the suitors (50-58).

portent: Zeus thunders at Odysseus' prayers, as well as the spinning girl's.

portent: The cowherd greets Odysseus and says how like Odysseus he is. He and the swineherd pray to Zeus about it.

portent: All the suitors and the serving girls arrive.

portent: A suitor throws a hoof at Odysseus (330-341). I don't know entirely what that's about, but it probably made Odysseus rather furious.

portent: Telemachus threatens the suitors (341-381).

portent: The seer Theoclymenus predicts the suitors' death (382-414).

THIS IS GREAT DRAMATIC BUILD-UP. I really felt rather anxious.

Penelope and Her Guest

"Get a grip on yourself" (19.44).

99-101: Penelope and Odysseus are on the same page, at least, even if they don't realize it. I guess that's a good relationship. CONNECTED even when they are APART. WOW. They are both pretty sneaky, which is interesting, because I suppose that must make them like each other. Except I bet their dating situation was rough. I wonder how Telemachus ended up so clear-minded--Homer describes him as such, but he comes from such tricksy hobbitsy stock... It's rather curious.

Why doesn't Odysseus just tell Penelope while they speak? Maybe he didn't want it to let slip to the suitors, but Telemachus can keep the secret. She wouldn't have told anyone either, probably, and then she wouldn't have been so sad for so much longer... they could have had their 'secret sign' conversation a few books early.

386: "They're not my style."

Odysseus also keeps predicting his own return, as do the eagles, and all sorts of prophets and whatnot. It's rather distressing that he's been gone for so long, and so no one takes him seriously. Except beautiful Eurycleia (430-538)! She sees that little scar and is so super excited about Odysseus. That's brilliant. I suppose Telemachus believed him, too. Anyway, then Eurycleia says she'll tattle on all the wenches (561)... and I began to wonder if that was okay. Everyone says tattling is lame, but telling people when someone has done wrong, so then justice is SERVED like so many tennis balls, is probably a good thing. I suppose it just seemed weird when I first read it.

602-629: geese + eagling = Odysseus. also... the future here is pretty obvious. thanks for playing, suitors.

Then lines 644-661 talk about Penelope's axe contest, which I remember vividly from Wishbone.

The Beggar-King of Ithaca

They ask Irus, Old Beggar, to kill Odysseus, New Beggar. It's like a cock fight, but then Dwayne shows up again and reveals his "rippling thighs" (76-81). Like Brennick. Then he wins. WHICH SHOULD PROBABLY TIP OFF THE SUITORS. Buuut they're pretty stupid. Which, by the way, is supported by the fact that they didn't realize, for three years, that Penelope was tricking them by unraveling Laertes' shroud. Duh.

This girl from my work, when she saw what I was reading, agrees that Fagles' translation is really funny. It's so... frank. Like lines 18.100-101. Cripes. And suddenly! There is foul language! and wenches (362-381)! And baldness (400-403)!

Also, more thrown stools (444). What is that? Is that a common mode of defense? Of releasing anger?

(I read through this stuff pretty quickly... so I don't have much to say, because I had to go through it again to write down some stuff. Sorry.)

Stranger at the Gates

I began to get rather into the story, and I didn't take notes so I could plow through a handful of the books, so sorry that my thoughts are... scattered and without purpose.

Telemachus has some tight friends who promise to keep his treasure for themselves if he gets offed. Knowing that the other option would be distributing it amongst the suitors, this is a pretty strong gesture of friendship. My thoughts then moved on to the fact that Greeks don't get an income just for being Greeks, and this must be why Odysseus was plundering all the time, and part of why people give guest gifts, and why everyone is handing out treasure... what goes around comes around. And foreign kings gave both Odysseus and Telemachus a boatload of golden goods, so now the whole family is super rich. Excellent.

Theoclymenus is the seer that Telemachus picked up, and now I understand why--they are more birds hanging around, and he translates this for Penelope or Telemachus or whoever is asking. No one believes him, but hey, Homer gave him a purpose in life.

17.185: Homer describes the suitors as being "full of swagger." 2011, you're not cool.

As Eumaeus and Odysseus walk to his mansion, one of the jerk suitors starts to beat up on Odysseus. Thankfully, he is built like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, and cannot be moved (17.255-256).

Enter Argos, the loyal dog (17.317-360). Odysseus cries. Exit Argos, the loyal dog.

In lines 381, 385, and 646, three different characters tell Odysseus that "Bashfulness, for a man in need, is no great friend." Thinking today of people who stand in the Dunkin' Donuts' parking lot and ask you for $2, I get kind of freaked out, so speaking only about beggars in ancient Greece, I guess this makes total sense. Even strangers were almost like beggars--the whole Zeus thing meant that they should be welcomed, but really, they want a place to stay and food to eat. So bashfulness would not be good in that situation.

Due to lines 602-612, I laughed out loud. Telemachus sneezes, and it marks Penelope's words as true. GREEKS, I TELL YOU.

Antinous is jerk pretty much all the time, and he throws a stool at Odysseus (508-512). Who does that, really? But thankfully, Homer agrees with me in his description of Odysseus as "steady as a rock" (17.512). His amazing foresight meant that he wanted Dwayne to play Odysseus in a potential movie. He even has a sacrificial bull tattooed on his bicep.

Father and Son

It's rather distressing when Eumaeus greets Telemachus like a son upon his arrival, when his real father (Odysseus) is sitting feet away and is IGNORED. and he can't even say hello without sounding terribly awkward. I also find it interesting that he doesn't tear up at this moment, although later, when he glimpses his loyal dog Argos, he has to look away for the tears in his eyes.

BUT IT'S OKAY. Because moments later, Athena transforms Odysseus and reveals him to Telemachus, and they are geeking out and crying and saying, "No, YOU'RE a god!" and "No, I'm not!" It's a pretty dramatic and touching moment, and I'm glad Telemachus believes him, because I already know (thanks, introduction) that Penelope doesn't believe him at first. Anyway, Odysseus the Liar tells Telemachus to keep his secret, which doesn't make sense to me, because they're both extremely BA. otherwise known as BASICALLY ARETE or something. (how do you pronounce Arete?)

The suitors are all murdery and deceitful, and it's terrible, and I hoped that Telemachus wouldn't die, or else the whole story would be ruined. Thankfully, Bernard Knox ruined it for me, and I didn't get terribly anxious. However, in 436-449, Amphinomus is like, "Alright, yo, check it. Dark. Smoke. Let's not kill Telemachus." I appreciate that, and I'm sure Telemachus does, too.

The Prince Sets Sail for Home

Athena tells Telemachus about the ambush, which is helpful. Apparently she can do this because Poseidon doesn't hate him, only Odysseus.

Menelaus seems to be that really friendly kind of host that doesn't insist that you stay even though he IS insisting that you stay... (15.73-94). Later, his son assists Telemachus in escaping from Menelaus' hospitality, which is pretty humorous. It wasn't mean, but it was sort of like, "I need to go home now... help me out here, Bob." Although guest gifts are nice. Telemachus is now loaded.

EAGLING AGAIN (179-183). Helen interprets, which is handy, because it is only minutes before a prophet/murderer comes along and hitches a ride with Telemachus. Strange, and at the time, I was wondering what Homer was even doing with his life. It makes sense later.

In contrast with his cunning and lying and crafty father, Telemachus is extremely honest and clear-minded, and I like it. I rather prefer it.

Brief interlude to reminisce on Odysseus' family: Laertes is depressed, and Eumaeus grew up with Odysseus' mother and sister! Wow! people have families! I just learned that Stalin had a daughter. Strange stuff.

15.443: "Even too much sleep can be a bore."

Eumaeus, the loyal swineherd, was kidnapped. His life sucks. JOIN THE ODYSSEUS CLUB. But really, at first, all I was doing was picking on Homer and this translation and weird Greek customs, but now I'm pretty into the story and feeling pretty terrible for Eumaeus, who was taken from his lovely rich family by a band of pirates and wenches, and then enslaved by his master who then leaves for 20 years. This. is. dramatic. The literature gets rather advanced, too, as Homer switches between father and son... it's like a movie, or a TV show, where the book/chapter ends right as Telemachus reaches Eumaeus' house, where Odysseus waits...

588-592: Birds again.

The Loyal Swineherd

... which makes me think of The Sound of Music.

Basically, Odysseus lies to his most faithful servant, and everyone from the swineherd to the swine to me believes it. It's full of exile and death, which is true to his real life, but full of falsehoods and fallacies that made me go, "wow, bummer," even though I KNEW IT WASN'T REAL. ODYSSEUS. CRIPES.

I know lying saved him from the Cyclops, and some other stuff, but I don't see why that's something to be lauded otherwise.

Eumaeus, the swineherd, is narrated in the second person. Homer probably sang about him like this so that it would work metrically--it happens more than once, so it must be one of the lines he reused frequently to fit in--but it's irregular and interesting. It's the only place in the entire book (that I've noticed, and that wasn't while someone was speaking) where the second person is used. As an example, 14. 502: You replied in kind, Eumaeus...

Anyway, then Odysseus tells a long lie just for a cloak. Eumaeus is pretty boss and probably would have just given it to him if he had asked. Again, I don't understand why that's necessary.

14.477: porker