Proverbs 1 & Introduction to History of Western Philosophy

(Originally Written January 24, 2014 on scrap paper)

It seems that every time I find myself to be bored intellectually I try to take up some sort of journaling endeavor. I come back to this or that book that had at one point sparked an endeavor to delve into some short-lived intellectual pursuit. Perhaps today is the beginning of one such short-lived journey. Perhaps not. We shall se in a month whether or not I am purchasing another composition notebook or not.

But, in my most recent returns to intellectual pursuits for the sake of the pursuit, I have come to the table trying to come from the perspective of the tabula rasa. I say, whether on paper or in some unfinished and unread blog things such as "of course one that is 30 cannot fully push beyond one's self all the experience of the past three decades" or "I shall try to come to an idea as if I were in possession of a blank slate as my mind". Firstly, when I think on these statements I laugh at my pretentiousness. Second, I find myself admiring the thought of trying to come from a clean slate without preconceived notions and without a desire to judge an idea.

Isn't it what we as modern human beings need? Openness in intellectual discussions, a willingness to abandon early notions for better ones, and a passion to keep an open mind about everything are the hallmarks of modernity in today's accepting society. But, then after I think critically about this clean slate approach I find myself souring on the entire idea. Besides that, the hallmarks of modernity are illusionary at best. The openness is only open for those that agree with you, the abandonment of early notions for better more progressive ones comes only when it suits a politically expedient solution and today's accepting society is partisan.

Of course some knowledge is gained through experience. Of course as we grow older our experiences change and shape our minds. But, the notion of there ever a mind that truly exists as a blank slate is nonsensical on many fronts. From a purely biological standpoint we, though we know still so little, we comprehend enough genetic knowledge to confidently say the sense play a major role in much of who we are. I won't say much more on this matter because what little collective genetic knowledge there is out there, even less is in my head.

Outside of the biological issues with a tabula rasa that interest me little, there are deeper issues with a clean slate idea. While the man will learn much from experience, the notion that there is not a framework for understanding contained in every human from birth is unpalatable on a couple of levels. First, logical reasoning is not something that can be absolutely empirically derived. Experience will have the logical functions of the mind. Language is another thing that exists intuitively. Of course humans learn language, but a baby reacts and interacts with a mother's voice from even inside the womb. There exists some framework in the mind that is innate.

Of course, then there is the imago dei, the strongest argument against a tabula rasa. While there is argument over exactly what the image of God is in humanity, its existence denies any notion of a clean slate at birth. Also, the inherited sin nature of man excludes a clean slate. Of course this argument is transcendental and falls on deaf ears to an unbelieving reader. But, as one who has experience God in relationship it is impossible for me to see from a viewpoint that has not had that experience. The opposite is true as well. One who has not accepted and experienced God in however little and partial as I have cannot see from my vantage point.

And lastly, the approach that I have taken in the past to achieve what I initially believed to be a noble pursuit was actually little more than a spineless approach to intellectual curiosity. In our open society, those who judge something as true or something as false, something as good or something as evil are quickly becoming labeled as bigoted or as close-minded. But, a pursuit of any intellectual subject must have as its end a desire to gain an understanding of that pursuit's truth. So it is with a desire to understand and attain truth that I set out on this adventure, however short-lived it may turn to be. (As an aside, this short-lived adventure lasted an incredible 19 days).

Now that I have trekked back to an old familiar starting point to begin again anew, let's go over the focus. What I will do in this journal is chronicle my thoughts from three sources. For the grounding I will delve into the Scriptures. For my intellectual curiosity I will start again in Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy. To stay current I will push into various weekly installments of The Economist. Because of my lack of direction in the Scriptures, I will start in Proverbs because of their instructive nature. I want to learn and that is in fact the goal of Proverbs, to instruct.

Proverbs 1

1:7a "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge".

I do wonder now at 30, am I the young in need of knowledge and discretion? Surely, I am not the wise ready to listen and add to my learning. Guide me then my Lord and teach me discretion. Help me to acquire a disciplined and prudent life.

I am struck by a couple of things. First, as I am setting out to find knowledge I have stumbled upon the perfect passage. "The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. This is a hard pill for the non-believer, but a grounding for me. Help me to never rely on my own cleverness and to always begin my pursuit of knowledge with the fear of the Lord.

Second, God as personified as wisdom calls out to us. If we do not reject Him, he would pour out His heart and make his thoughts known (1:23). How much do we as Christians struggle with what is the will of God? We toss and turn and say, 'is this your will'? Yet, God says to listen to His rebuke and He will make His mind known to us. But that word rebuke is thought to swallow. As the non-believer finds it unpalatable to admit knowledge begins with the fear of the Lord, the Christian finds it just as unsatisfying to know that we must heed God's correction to know his mind. Break me of my pride so that I hear your rebuke, Lord.

I pray this because God as wisdom personified states that if we reject wisdom we will be turned over to our own sinful desires. God will not intercede on our behalf if we don't call on him. This is the real problem of Free Will, not the mere intellectual one. The part I find most terrifying is 1:32b "The complacency of fools will destroy them". Lord, hear my prayer: let me bend my will to your gentle rebuke and help me not to be complacent. Let me take safety in your wisdom.

A History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

I chose this book because I read it in the summer of 2005 when I was becoming interested in philosophy. It seemed a good starting point then and an appropriate one now. I enjoy the historical aspect of it and it should offer a good launching pad into specific areas of thought.

Introduction:

Philosophy is the product of two factors for Russell, an inherited religious and ethical conception and a sort of scientific investigatory process. "Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science" (Russell, xiii). Russell states that all definite knowledge belongs to science, while dogma - that which surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. Between definite knowledge and dogma is philosophy, a no man's land open to attack from both sides. The studying of questions here in the middle is the business of philosophy.

Russell freely admits that science cannot provide all the answers to life. But he contends that theology has provided answers that are so definitive that they must be met with suspicion by the modern mind. He contends that uncertainty, though painful, must be a part of life if we are to live without "the support of comforting fairy tales" (Russell, xiv). He contends that philosophy is the key to teach one how live in the face of that uncertainty.

Russell seems to state that Christianity's rise was aided by some Stoic traditions. Is this true? He states that Christianity replaced the ideal of antiquity of man's allegiance to the state with man's allegiance to God.

"Dante achieved a synthesis, and gave the only balance exposition of the complete medieval world of ideas" (Russell, xviii). I must read the whole of Dante in the near future.

"The Catholic Church was derived from three sources. Its sacred history was Jewish, its theology was Greek, its government and cannon law...Roman. The Reformation rejected the Roman elements, softened the Greek elements and greatly strengthened the Judaic elements" (Russell, xx).

I do like what Russell says about the Reformation and it explains neatly the current state of Christianity. In the rejection of Catholicism and a central authority determining Truth, the fracturing of Protestantism led to a deepening subjectivism and leading to personal isolation. While the Reformation led to an opening up of a personal avenue between God and man by removing an unnecessary and human constructed constraint between God and man, it fractured a core tenant of Christian belief - the corporate nature of faith. This seems very sad to me.