Xenophanes
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Like Heraclitus, Xenophanes attacked the old Greek theology, calling it immoral and untrue. He attacked its anthropomorphic qualities. His famous quote about the anthropomorphic qualities of Greek religion is as follows, "Yes, and if oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds" (Jones, 19).
Xenophanes, while attacking the old gods, was not atheistic. He had one God, which was neither like man in form or thought. While this seems to be a monotheistic notion, it was probably pantheistic like Heraclitus' religion.
The reason that the populace never took up the religions of Heraclitus or Xenophanes was that it was too abstract to replace the common religion. It didn't offer the necessary emotional connection to replace the old religion. It left a void.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-Xenophanes falls between Pythagoras and Heraclitus. Xenophanes references Pythagoras and Heraclitus references Xenophanes.
-Xenophanes was an Ionian but lived in Southern Italy
-He believed that all things were made of earth and water
-He believed in one God, unlike man in thought or form
-He mocked the Pythagorean theological notion of the transmigration of the soul
-He believed that any theological knowledge was impossible. Even if man happened to say something correct about God, it was by accident.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Xenophanes was a peripatetic poet from Colophon in Ionia.
-Despite being a typical poet, writing on drink, love, war and games, he was considered a philosopher and the teacher of Parmenides
-wrote against Hesiod and Homer for their teachings about the gods
-Stobaeus, quotes Xenophanes stating that the gods did not reveal things to mortals, but through inquiry man makes discoveries
-Xenophanes criticized Homer and Hesiod for ascribing to the gods shameful and blameworthy things like theft and adultery
-Claimed that one and all is god
-believed that the one god governed everything by thought
-believed that nothing comes into being or is destroyed or changes
According to Hippolytus, Xenophanes said "All men are destroyed when the earth is carried down into the sea and turns into mud; then they begin to be born again. And this is how all the worlds begin" (Barnes, 47).
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Alcmaeon
Alcmaeon
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathon Barnes
2001
-Alcmaeon came from Croton in South Italy, a city renowned for its doctors
-was a pupil of Pythagoras
-he was the first of the philosopher/physicians that became a trend in ancient Greece
-believed that the soul was immortal
-believed that most human things come in pairs
-believed that health came from the proper balance of the powers in nature. When there is too much of one thing, disease is born (too much heat causes stroke, too much cold causes coughing, etc.) "Health is the propionate blending of the qualities" (Barnes, 37)
-believed the soul to be immortal because it was like the divinities who are always in motion
-while he believed that the soul was immortal, he believed that men die
-differentiated men from animals by stating men alone understand, animals perceive but do not understand
-differentiates thinking and perceiving
Clement of Alexandria states that "Alcmaeon of Croton says that it is easier to be on your guard against an enemy than against a friend" (Barnes, 39).
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathon Barnes
2001
-Alcmaeon came from Croton in South Italy, a city renowned for its doctors
-was a pupil of Pythagoras
-he was the first of the philosopher/physicians that became a trend in ancient Greece
-believed that the soul was immortal
-believed that most human things come in pairs
-believed that health came from the proper balance of the powers in nature. When there is too much of one thing, disease is born (too much heat causes stroke, too much cold causes coughing, etc.) "Health is the propionate blending of the qualities" (Barnes, 37)
-believed the soul to be immortal because it was like the divinities who are always in motion
-while he believed that the soul was immortal, he believed that men die
-differentiated men from animals by stating men alone understand, animals perceive but do not understand
-differentiates thinking and perceiving
Clement of Alexandria states that "Alcmaeon of Croton says that it is easier to be on your guard against an enemy than against a friend" (Barnes, 39).
Anaximenes
Anaximenes
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
-third of the Milesian philosophers
-monist, his one stuff is air
-Rejected Anaximander's boundless because the boundless is easy to talk about but impossible to define. Every 'thing' has characteristics that make it a 'thing'. The boundless has no characteristics by definition and therefore, can't be a thing at all, let alone the one thing. He showed that Anaximander's theory, rather than solving the problem of how one thing becomes many things, it simply masks the problem.
-Air, being the one stuff for Anaximenes changes quantitatively (becoming more or less dense) that effects the qualitative change in the many things that air becomes through this process.
-"Anaximenes laid the basis for a quantitative description of the world" (Jones, 14).
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-The fundamental substance for Anaximenes was air. "The soul is air; fire is rarefied air; when condensed, air becomes first water, then if further condensed, earth, and finally stone" (Russell, 28).
-Anaximenes advance was to make the difference between substances quantitative.
-The earth is shaped like a round table and air encompasses it. The air holds up the earth like the soul (also made of air) holds man together
-Influenced Pythagoras
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Unlike his earlier contemporary Anaximander who wrote in 'somewhat poetical words', Anaximenes wrote in a simple and economical style
-Principle substance is limitless air, from which what is coming, is and what was is composed of.
-The air is always in motion
-Air becomes other substances either by becoming rarefied or by condensing.
-Earth is flat. The sun and the moon and other heavenly bodies are flat and ride in the air because of their flatness
-"The heavenly bodies have come into being from earth, because mist rises from the earth and is rarefied and produces fire, and the heavenly bodies are composed of this fire when it is aloft" (Barnes, 24).
-our souls are air and hold us together, breath and air encompass the whole world
-Air, the first principle is necessarily limitless because it never gives out
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
-third of the Milesian philosophers
-monist, his one stuff is air
-Rejected Anaximander's boundless because the boundless is easy to talk about but impossible to define. Every 'thing' has characteristics that make it a 'thing'. The boundless has no characteristics by definition and therefore, can't be a thing at all, let alone the one thing. He showed that Anaximander's theory, rather than solving the problem of how one thing becomes many things, it simply masks the problem.
-Air, being the one stuff for Anaximenes changes quantitatively (becoming more or less dense) that effects the qualitative change in the many things that air becomes through this process.
-"Anaximenes laid the basis for a quantitative description of the world" (Jones, 14).
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-The fundamental substance for Anaximenes was air. "The soul is air; fire is rarefied air; when condensed, air becomes first water, then if further condensed, earth, and finally stone" (Russell, 28).
-Anaximenes advance was to make the difference between substances quantitative.
-The earth is shaped like a round table and air encompasses it. The air holds up the earth like the soul (also made of air) holds man together
-Influenced Pythagoras
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Unlike his earlier contemporary Anaximander who wrote in 'somewhat poetical words', Anaximenes wrote in a simple and economical style
-Principle substance is limitless air, from which what is coming, is and what was is composed of.
-The air is always in motion
-Air becomes other substances either by becoming rarefied or by condensing.
-Earth is flat. The sun and the moon and other heavenly bodies are flat and ride in the air because of their flatness
-"The heavenly bodies have come into being from earth, because mist rises from the earth and is rarefied and produces fire, and the heavenly bodies are composed of this fire when it is aloft" (Barnes, 24).
-our souls are air and hold us together, breath and air encompass the whole world
-Air, the first principle is necessarily limitless because it never gives out
Friday, July 31, 2015
Anaximander
Anaximander:
The Classical Mind 2nd Edition
W.T. Jones
1980
- A younger contemporary of Thales
- One remaining sentence from his book: "From what source things arise, to that they return of necessity when they are destroyed; for they suffer punishment and make reparation to one another for their injustice according to the order of the time" (Jones, 11).
- There is one stuff (monism)
- There is a process by which the one becomes many stuffs
- The process is necessary
- For Anaximander, the one stuff was not an element, but something called the 'boundless'
- Anaximander argued that the one stuff couldn't be an element from a logical standpoint. Water can't really become fire because that would be the thing becoming the opposite of itself. Since all the elements would have this problem, his one stuff had to be something entirely different in essence.
- For Anaximander the process was important. The boundless would become something, would return to the boundless and then become the opposite thing. It was cyclical.
-For Anaximander, "The world was still basically disorderly, and that what required explanation was its orderliness" (Jones, 12).
-Anaximander had an interesting theory of evolution that anticipated some basic Darwinian features.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-Born around 610 B.C.
- Second of the third Milesian philosophers
- His first substance was infinite, eternal and ageless. It encompasses all the world
- Thought our world was one of many
- His process of the boundless becoming other things and then back to being the boundless has an underpinning of cosmic justice.
- He believed "there should be a certain proportion of fire, of earth, and of water in the world, but each element (conceived as a god) is perpetually attempting to enlarge its empire. But there is a kind of necessity or natural law which perpetually redresses the balance; where there has been fire, for example, there are ashes, which are earth" (Russell, 27).
-The worlds that existed evolved, and were not created
-Believed that man descended from fish
-First man to make a map
-Earth is shaped like a cylinder
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Produced a star map and a map of the world
-The boundless contains all the world
-The boundless is also time
-Eternal motion exists and that brings the heavens into existence
-Earth is rounded like a stone pillar
-The number of worlds is limitless in number
-All things are constantly renewed after destruction (return to the boundless and then processed again)
-At the generation of earth something broke off from the eternal and formed a flame around the earth, like bark on a tree. Then the ball burst and the sun, moon and stars came into being.
- Censorinus - "Anaximander of Miletus says he thinks that from water and earth when they were heated, there arose fish, or animals very like fish, that humans grew in them, and that the embryos were retained inside up to puberty, whereupon the fish-like animals burst and men and women emerged already able to look after themselves" (Barnes, 20). That could be an interesting invasion story for Future Modern Ancient Greeks.
-The boundless is divine, because it is immortal and indestructible
Anaximander might be the best one to model the Future Modern Greek's new planet
The Classical Mind 2nd Edition
W.T. Jones
1980
- A younger contemporary of Thales
- One remaining sentence from his book: "From what source things arise, to that they return of necessity when they are destroyed; for they suffer punishment and make reparation to one another for their injustice according to the order of the time" (Jones, 11).
- There is one stuff (monism)
- There is a process by which the one becomes many stuffs
- The process is necessary
- For Anaximander, the one stuff was not an element, but something called the 'boundless'
- Anaximander argued that the one stuff couldn't be an element from a logical standpoint. Water can't really become fire because that would be the thing becoming the opposite of itself. Since all the elements would have this problem, his one stuff had to be something entirely different in essence.
- For Anaximander the process was important. The boundless would become something, would return to the boundless and then become the opposite thing. It was cyclical.
-For Anaximander, "The world was still basically disorderly, and that what required explanation was its orderliness" (Jones, 12).
-Anaximander had an interesting theory of evolution that anticipated some basic Darwinian features.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-Born around 610 B.C.
- Second of the third Milesian philosophers
- His first substance was infinite, eternal and ageless. It encompasses all the world
- Thought our world was one of many
- His process of the boundless becoming other things and then back to being the boundless has an underpinning of cosmic justice.
- He believed "there should be a certain proportion of fire, of earth, and of water in the world, but each element (conceived as a god) is perpetually attempting to enlarge its empire. But there is a kind of necessity or natural law which perpetually redresses the balance; where there has been fire, for example, there are ashes, which are earth" (Russell, 27).
-The worlds that existed evolved, and were not created
-Believed that man descended from fish
-First man to make a map
-Earth is shaped like a cylinder
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Produced a star map and a map of the world
-The boundless contains all the world
-The boundless is also time
-Eternal motion exists and that brings the heavens into existence
-Earth is rounded like a stone pillar
-The number of worlds is limitless in number
-All things are constantly renewed after destruction (return to the boundless and then processed again)
-At the generation of earth something broke off from the eternal and formed a flame around the earth, like bark on a tree. Then the ball burst and the sun, moon and stars came into being.
- Censorinus - "Anaximander of Miletus says he thinks that from water and earth when they were heated, there arose fish, or animals very like fish, that humans grew in them, and that the embryos were retained inside up to puberty, whereupon the fish-like animals burst and men and women emerged already able to look after themselves" (Barnes, 20). That could be an interesting invasion story for Future Modern Ancient Greeks.
-The boundless is divine, because it is immortal and indestructible
Anaximander might be the best one to model the Future Modern Greek's new planet
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Notes on The Flight of Icarus
Generally speaking I don't love to read plays. I like to watch plays, but reading them doesn't normally give me the same satisfaction as seeing them or as reading a novel. But, Raymond Queneau's The Flight of Icarus may have shifted that paradigm for me. I loved this book/play.
Morcol's line to Hubert "Die by all means but keep calm. My intellectual powers have caused me to change my mind" (Queneua, 33) is absolutely a double whammy. What a wonderful way of saying I was wrong without saying I was wrong.
The part about dicknapping on pages 39-40 made me laugh out loud and wake up my wife.
"Doctor: As we say in French: voila le hic.
Sir: Not the hic, the dick."
...
"Morcol: For some reasons of which I am unaware, no doubt because you considered that the work he has undertaken is injurious to his health, to prevent him from continuing it you have dicknapped the principal character of his novel.
Doctor: (stupefied by this neologism) Dicknapped?"
...
"Doctor: Since you don't want any bicarbonate of soda, lie down on that couch and tell me everything that comes into your head; it'll do you good.
Morcol: And will that help me find my Dick?"
Oh my gosh, the sophomoric humor is too much!
It has just dawned on me though that the Doctor unsuccessfully tries to get nearly every character to do the laying down on his couch thing and tell him what pops into their head unsuccessfully. The Surrealists loved psychoanalysis and since Queneau broke from them this might be a jab of repudiation at them.
"The place where the most famous adulteries are consummated and consumed" (Queneau, 53). What a wonderful pun. There are a lot of puns in here, most of which are intended I think, to make the reader groan. This one got a good groan from me.
Scene 34 where Hubert's rivals and friends kidnap the returned Icarus to interrogate him is hysterical. While they are busy pontificating Icarus sneaks out the bathroom window and into the wide world yet again.
Morcol is scouring the Bois de Boulogne in search of Icarus when he is nearly run over by Icarus on the bicycle. "Morcol: Clumsy oaf! I was in a very dangerous situation, there. I'm quite upset. I can't even remember why I'm in the Bois de Boulogne. Let me think... Ah yes. Well, even so, there's not much point in trying to run after him" (Queneau, 122). This was another line that had me laughing and disturbing my wife's slumber.
Morcol reminds me a little bit of Dirk Gently in methodology. Dirk solves the whole crime and the whole person through the interconnectedness of everything. "Morcol: The Bois de Boulogne. Everything leads back there. Reason, flair, intuition, not to mention my method of free association - everything sends me in that direction. Unfortunately the Bois de Boulogne is vast; what's more, it's dangerous. You keep nearly getting run over" (Queneau, 125). Just like Dirk, Morcol is fated to go where it won't end well for him because their methodologies, however odd, are correct.
"I'm giving up, Monsieur Surget. I'm giving up. No more shadowing. And above all, no more shadowing of shadows - meaning insubstantial images of authors' imaginations" (Queneau, 140). A little self-deprecation never hurt anyone.
"Surget: You have no pity.
Morcol: I have some for myself" (Queneau, 140). Man that was another good zinger.
"Well well! so that's where we've got with popular medicine and the pharmaceutical advertisements which are displayed not insidiously but in abundance in the daily and even weekly papers. So that's where we've got: the patient wants to heal himself! Any minute now he'll be wanting to write out his own prescription!" (Queneau, 141). Apparently Queneau and Dr. Lajoie could see the state of 21st century medicine and the advent of WebMD.
"Doctor: It's the paying that counts; you'll see how much good it'll do you" (Queneau, 160). Not much explanation needed there.
Two things that sort of sum up the best part of this story, the characters knowing they are characters, the fiction within the fiction, the surrealism, the meta...
"Icarus: Oh, I'm more read about than a reader" (Queneau, 164). Very good.
"Icarus: How do we know? It may all come to the same thing. They may be the characters of some other sort of author" (Queneau, 166-167)
The part where Icarus is offered Balbine by Monsieur Berrrier as a wife is great.
"Icarus: The thing is, I'm already engaged.
Balbine: Oh God! (she faints in her father's arms)
Icarus: Only I don't particularly want to marry my fiancée, alas.
Balbine (coming out of her coma). Heaven be praised.
Icarus: But I've got what they call a mistress.
Monsieur Berrrier: A liaison. They're made to be broken.
Icarus: And there's a society lady chasing me.
Balbine: Monsieur is very much in demand" (Queneau, 170).
Another thing I just noticed is Monsieur Berrrier's name. In reading it I had not noticed the triple R. It's weird that the mind only sees what it is accustomed to seeing.
Morcol's line to Hubert "Die by all means but keep calm. My intellectual powers have caused me to change my mind" (Queneua, 33) is absolutely a double whammy. What a wonderful way of saying I was wrong without saying I was wrong.
The part about dicknapping on pages 39-40 made me laugh out loud and wake up my wife.
"Doctor: As we say in French: voila le hic.
Sir: Not the hic, the dick."
...
"Morcol: For some reasons of which I am unaware, no doubt because you considered that the work he has undertaken is injurious to his health, to prevent him from continuing it you have dicknapped the principal character of his novel.
Doctor: (stupefied by this neologism) Dicknapped?"
...
"Doctor: Since you don't want any bicarbonate of soda, lie down on that couch and tell me everything that comes into your head; it'll do you good.
Morcol: And will that help me find my Dick?"
Oh my gosh, the sophomoric humor is too much!
It has just dawned on me though that the Doctor unsuccessfully tries to get nearly every character to do the laying down on his couch thing and tell him what pops into their head unsuccessfully. The Surrealists loved psychoanalysis and since Queneau broke from them this might be a jab of repudiation at them.
"The place where the most famous adulteries are consummated and consumed" (Queneau, 53). What a wonderful pun. There are a lot of puns in here, most of which are intended I think, to make the reader groan. This one got a good groan from me.
Scene 34 where Hubert's rivals and friends kidnap the returned Icarus to interrogate him is hysterical. While they are busy pontificating Icarus sneaks out the bathroom window and into the wide world yet again.
Morcol is scouring the Bois de Boulogne in search of Icarus when he is nearly run over by Icarus on the bicycle. "Morcol: Clumsy oaf! I was in a very dangerous situation, there. I'm quite upset. I can't even remember why I'm in the Bois de Boulogne. Let me think... Ah yes. Well, even so, there's not much point in trying to run after him" (Queneau, 122). This was another line that had me laughing and disturbing my wife's slumber.
Morcol reminds me a little bit of Dirk Gently in methodology. Dirk solves the whole crime and the whole person through the interconnectedness of everything. "Morcol: The Bois de Boulogne. Everything leads back there. Reason, flair, intuition, not to mention my method of free association - everything sends me in that direction. Unfortunately the Bois de Boulogne is vast; what's more, it's dangerous. You keep nearly getting run over" (Queneau, 125). Just like Dirk, Morcol is fated to go where it won't end well for him because their methodologies, however odd, are correct.
"I'm giving up, Monsieur Surget. I'm giving up. No more shadowing. And above all, no more shadowing of shadows - meaning insubstantial images of authors' imaginations" (Queneau, 140). A little self-deprecation never hurt anyone.
"Surget: You have no pity.
Morcol: I have some for myself" (Queneau, 140). Man that was another good zinger.
"Well well! so that's where we've got with popular medicine and the pharmaceutical advertisements which are displayed not insidiously but in abundance in the daily and even weekly papers. So that's where we've got: the patient wants to heal himself! Any minute now he'll be wanting to write out his own prescription!" (Queneau, 141). Apparently Queneau and Dr. Lajoie could see the state of 21st century medicine and the advent of WebMD.
"Doctor: It's the paying that counts; you'll see how much good it'll do you" (Queneau, 160). Not much explanation needed there.
Two things that sort of sum up the best part of this story, the characters knowing they are characters, the fiction within the fiction, the surrealism, the meta...
"Icarus: Oh, I'm more read about than a reader" (Queneau, 164). Very good.
"Icarus: How do we know? It may all come to the same thing. They may be the characters of some other sort of author" (Queneau, 166-167)
The part where Icarus is offered Balbine by Monsieur Berrrier as a wife is great.
"Icarus: The thing is, I'm already engaged.
Balbine: Oh God! (she faints in her father's arms)
Icarus: Only I don't particularly want to marry my fiancée, alas.
Balbine (coming out of her coma). Heaven be praised.
Icarus: But I've got what they call a mistress.
Monsieur Berrrier: A liaison. They're made to be broken.
Icarus: And there's a society lady chasing me.
Balbine: Monsieur is very much in demand" (Queneau, 170).
Another thing I just noticed is Monsieur Berrrier's name. In reading it I had not noticed the triple R. It's weird that the mind only sees what it is accustomed to seeing.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge Revisited
It's been ten years since I've read the book Secular Humanism: Threat and Challenge by Robert E. Webber. It's been thirty-two years since Robert E. Webber has written the book. Some of its tone seems to be as current as ever. Its rhetoric is definitely current. But, in typing the notes I've noticed a few things about my own thoughts on these topics in my current mindset. I've matured; become less naïve and developed a more nuanced view of the world. I'm not sure if that's always the best thing in the world, but it is the brute fact. But, I've become a little bit more open-minded to things as well. I think I'd be less apt to label secular humanism as hypocritical in the margins of my notes today. I might not; I once yelled at an Ayn Rand book and scared some poor Starbucks sipping soccer moms to death.
I reject the dichotomy between science and Christianity that has plagued us since the renaissance. I accept that the Church has at times been a source of blocking progress in numerous fields of knowledge. But, I reject that it blocks progress in the fields of ethics. Ethics is a field in which progress ought not to be made.
I am no longer stand vehemently against the theory of evolution. It seems to be, at the moment, the best paradigm we posses for how man came to be in the physical state he is at the moment. It has nothing to do with his moral state though. Physical evolution cannot produce morality. But, as a Christian I am confident that whether the Genesis account of creation was supposed to be literal or figurative or something in between, it has no bearing on the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Whether God used words and instant gratification, or a form of evolution, the fact of the matter is that when God created the world He had already set into motion His plans to redeem mankind.
I am still very much against abortion except in rare circumstances. I have no problem with state sanctioned marriages because they have nothing to do with the marriage that is sacred in the Bible. The Bible puts marriage up as a union between a man, a woman and God. Secular marriage should be meaningless to the purely Christian viewpoint. Now, pastors or priests who marry someone in a non-Biblical fashion, they are going to have to answer for that some day. But, that has nothing to do with a state sanctioning.
The secularist optimistic view of man is hopelessly flawed as well. Man is inherently evil. While it is possible for the most evil of person to do something good or for less evil men to suppress their evil for awhile, that evil always lurks in the back and given the right circumstances will manifest itself. If those right circumstances happen to be when a given individual is in a powerful position, the manifestation will bring about powerful consequences. The good that even the most heinous of men possess is the remnant of the Imago Dei shining through the darkness. The difference between the Christians and the non-Christian is that darkness has been overcome by the light in a reunion with Christ. That is it.
The separation of Church and State used to be a hot topic for me. I thought it was awful that God was being blocked from public forums. The fact of the matter is though that a government cannot block God from coming into the public domain. I don't need to worry about that. God will manifest Himself whether a secularist government wants Him to or not. That isn't a battle worth fighting because it is already won. While I feel that I would be less inclined to nod my head along if I were to read this book now as I find myself agreeing on a couple of things he said about politics.
"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109). The Church isn't supposed to be a political vehicle. Divorce your politics from your faith. That doesn't mean accepting recent legislation as being the new ethically right standpoint. Ethics don't evolve because moral absolutes still exist, regardless of what man thinks of them. What it means is that your political agenda shouldn't influence your walk with Christ and it shouldn't move the Church in any particular way. The Church can recognize the brokenness that some secularist laws create the conditions for. But, when your political affiliation or your patriotism begins to move your walk with God or your church's agenda you can be pretty sure that you'll end up down a path that isn't authentically Christian.
I reject the dichotomy between science and Christianity that has plagued us since the renaissance. I accept that the Church has at times been a source of blocking progress in numerous fields of knowledge. But, I reject that it blocks progress in the fields of ethics. Ethics is a field in which progress ought not to be made.
I am no longer stand vehemently against the theory of evolution. It seems to be, at the moment, the best paradigm we posses for how man came to be in the physical state he is at the moment. It has nothing to do with his moral state though. Physical evolution cannot produce morality. But, as a Christian I am confident that whether the Genesis account of creation was supposed to be literal or figurative or something in between, it has no bearing on the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Whether God used words and instant gratification, or a form of evolution, the fact of the matter is that when God created the world He had already set into motion His plans to redeem mankind.
I am still very much against abortion except in rare circumstances. I have no problem with state sanctioned marriages because they have nothing to do with the marriage that is sacred in the Bible. The Bible puts marriage up as a union between a man, a woman and God. Secular marriage should be meaningless to the purely Christian viewpoint. Now, pastors or priests who marry someone in a non-Biblical fashion, they are going to have to answer for that some day. But, that has nothing to do with a state sanctioning.
The secularist optimistic view of man is hopelessly flawed as well. Man is inherently evil. While it is possible for the most evil of person to do something good or for less evil men to suppress their evil for awhile, that evil always lurks in the back and given the right circumstances will manifest itself. If those right circumstances happen to be when a given individual is in a powerful position, the manifestation will bring about powerful consequences. The good that even the most heinous of men possess is the remnant of the Imago Dei shining through the darkness. The difference between the Christians and the non-Christian is that darkness has been overcome by the light in a reunion with Christ. That is it.
The separation of Church and State used to be a hot topic for me. I thought it was awful that God was being blocked from public forums. The fact of the matter is though that a government cannot block God from coming into the public domain. I don't need to worry about that. God will manifest Himself whether a secularist government wants Him to or not. That isn't a battle worth fighting because it is already won. While I feel that I would be less inclined to nod my head along if I were to read this book now as I find myself agreeing on a couple of things he said about politics.
"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109). The Church isn't supposed to be a political vehicle. Divorce your politics from your faith. That doesn't mean accepting recent legislation as being the new ethically right standpoint. Ethics don't evolve because moral absolutes still exist, regardless of what man thinks of them. What it means is that your political agenda shouldn't influence your walk with Christ and it shouldn't move the Church in any particular way. The Church can recognize the brokenness that some secularist laws create the conditions for. But, when your political affiliation or your patriotism begins to move your walk with God or your church's agenda you can be pretty sure that you'll end up down a path that isn't authentically Christian.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Notes on Timequake - Kurt Vonnegut
I finished Timequake by Kurt Vonnegut the other day, probably the first time I have finished a book by him. I think there was a time I picked up Slaughterhouse Five in the previous century but I'm not sure if I finished it. If I did, it left no lasting impact on me - which, speaks more to my maturity in the previous century than any thing Vonnegut did or did not do with his masterpiece. I enjoyed Timequake very much. I gave it a four-star on my goodreads account. I loved the cynicism and the style. I think it played a part in my short-story entitled The Trade, at least in the tone of the story. I didn't mean to copy his style but it definitely bled through my subconscious. But that is neither here nor there. These are some of the things I really liked about the book:
"Hooray for fireman!
Scum of the Earth as some may be in their daily lives, they can all be saints in emergencies.
Hooray for fireman" (Vonnegut, 7).
First, of this sentence is funny. Second, it points out the fact that as horrible as people can be, they have the capacity to be good, and even better than good.
"People so smart you can't believe it, and people so dumb you can't believe it. People so nice you can't believe it, and people so mean you can't believe it" (Vonnegut, 14). I just really liked the double emphasis in this passage.
"He commented unfavorably on the camouflage suits our own generals wear nowadays on TV, when they describe blasting the bejesus out of some Third World country because of petroleum. 'I can't imagine,' he said, 'any part of the world where such garish pajamas would make a soldier less rather than more visible. We are evidently preparing.' he said, 'to fight World War Three in the midst of an enormous Spanish omelet" (Vonnegut, 27). That's just hysterical to me. Subversive, cynical and distrustful of the government, but hysterical.
This is a long passage, but it's a good one: "'God created the heaven and the earth,' the old, long out-of-print science fiction writer went on. 'And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Satan could have done this herself, but she thought it was stupid, action for the sake of action. What was the point? She didn't say anything at first. But Satan began to worry about God when He said, let there be light and there was light. She had to wonder, What in the heck does he think he's doing? How far does he intend to go, and does he expect me to help him take care of all this crazy stuff? And then the shit really hit the fan. God made man and woman, beautiful little miniatures of Him and her and turned them loose to see what might become of them. The Garden of Eden' said Trout, 'might be considered the prototype for the Colosseum and the Roman Games'" (Vonnegut, 29). A fascinating retelling of the Genesis account.
Chapter 14 might be my favorite chapter in the whole book. I won't quote the whole thing, but Trout's explanation of 'ting-a-ling' is hysterical and sad all at once. "It was nothing but a dirty joke, but this poor, sick man had come to believe it a parable about the awful blows that life had dealt him" (Vonnegut, 58). Ting-a-ling indeed.
"Science never cheered up anyone. The truth about the human situation is just too awful" (Vonnegut, 121). Vonnegut, being a humanist recognizes some of the flaws that a purely naturalistic viewpoint has. He presents it in his gallows humor type of way, but he recognizes the flaws. The problem here is his pride. His pride in himself and his pride in the humans who can achieve happiness without religion. Somewhere else in the book he praises his ex-wife who died without losing faith. He seems genuinely happy about that. I'm not sure if he was mocking her or not. It felt a bit more sincere. But, earlier on this page he lets his feelings be known about religion by relating a story about Isaac Newton. "That Newton was advised by those who were his nominal supervisors to take time out of the hard truths of science to brush up on theology. I like to think they did this not because they were foolish, but to remind him of how comforting and encouraging the make-believe of religion can be for common folk" (Vonnegut, 121). First, I reject out of hand the false dichotomy set up between religion and science. Second, I find this sad. Lastly, I sense a bit of elitism from Vonnegut when dealing with the common folk who still hold religious sentiments. I disagree with his philosophy of religion.
While I disagree with Vonnegut on his philosophy of religion, I found myself nodding my head to his amusing and simplified aesthetic theory. "I was pleased to reply with an epistle which was frankly vengeful, since he and Father had screwed me out of a liberal arts college education: 'Dear Brother: This is almost like telling you about the birds and the bees,' I began. 'There are many good people who are beneficially stimulated by some, but not all, manmade arrangements of colors and shapes on flat surfaces, essentially nonsense. You yourself are gratified by some music, arrangements of noises, and again essentially nonsense. If I were to kick a bucket down the cellar stairs, and then say to you that the racket I had made was philosophically on a par with The Magic Flute, this would not be the beginning of a long and upsetting debate. An utterly satisfactory and complete response on your part would be, 'I like what Mozart did, and I hate what the bucket did'. Contemplating a purported work of art is a social activity. Either you have a rewarding time, or you don't. You don't have to say why afterward. You don't have to say anything. You are a justly revered experimentalist, dear Brother. If you really want to know whether your pictures are, as you say, 'art or not,' you must display them in a public place somewhere, and see if strangers like to look at them. That is the way the game is played. Let me know what happens. I went on: 'People capable of liking some paintings or prints or whatever can rarely do so without knowing something about the artist. Again, the situation is social rather than scientific. Any work of art is half of a conversation between two human beings, and it helps a lot to know who is talking at you. Does he or she have a reputation for seriousness, for religiosity, for suffering, for concupiscence, for rebellion, for sincerity, for jokes?" (Vonnegut, 167-168). Art as a conversation between two or more people. A simplified definition of what art is. I can dig it.
Overall, I loved this book. I can't wait to pick up another Vonnegut book in the near future.
"Hooray for fireman!
Scum of the Earth as some may be in their daily lives, they can all be saints in emergencies.
Hooray for fireman" (Vonnegut, 7).
First, of this sentence is funny. Second, it points out the fact that as horrible as people can be, they have the capacity to be good, and even better than good.
"People so smart you can't believe it, and people so dumb you can't believe it. People so nice you can't believe it, and people so mean you can't believe it" (Vonnegut, 14). I just really liked the double emphasis in this passage.
"He commented unfavorably on the camouflage suits our own generals wear nowadays on TV, when they describe blasting the bejesus out of some Third World country because of petroleum. 'I can't imagine,' he said, 'any part of the world where such garish pajamas would make a soldier less rather than more visible. We are evidently preparing.' he said, 'to fight World War Three in the midst of an enormous Spanish omelet" (Vonnegut, 27). That's just hysterical to me. Subversive, cynical and distrustful of the government, but hysterical.
This is a long passage, but it's a good one: "'God created the heaven and the earth,' the old, long out-of-print science fiction writer went on. 'And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Satan could have done this herself, but she thought it was stupid, action for the sake of action. What was the point? She didn't say anything at first. But Satan began to worry about God when He said, let there be light and there was light. She had to wonder, What in the heck does he think he's doing? How far does he intend to go, and does he expect me to help him take care of all this crazy stuff? And then the shit really hit the fan. God made man and woman, beautiful little miniatures of Him and her and turned them loose to see what might become of them. The Garden of Eden' said Trout, 'might be considered the prototype for the Colosseum and the Roman Games'" (Vonnegut, 29). A fascinating retelling of the Genesis account.
Chapter 14 might be my favorite chapter in the whole book. I won't quote the whole thing, but Trout's explanation of 'ting-a-ling' is hysterical and sad all at once. "It was nothing but a dirty joke, but this poor, sick man had come to believe it a parable about the awful blows that life had dealt him" (Vonnegut, 58). Ting-a-ling indeed.
"Science never cheered up anyone. The truth about the human situation is just too awful" (Vonnegut, 121). Vonnegut, being a humanist recognizes some of the flaws that a purely naturalistic viewpoint has. He presents it in his gallows humor type of way, but he recognizes the flaws. The problem here is his pride. His pride in himself and his pride in the humans who can achieve happiness without religion. Somewhere else in the book he praises his ex-wife who died without losing faith. He seems genuinely happy about that. I'm not sure if he was mocking her or not. It felt a bit more sincere. But, earlier on this page he lets his feelings be known about religion by relating a story about Isaac Newton. "That Newton was advised by those who were his nominal supervisors to take time out of the hard truths of science to brush up on theology. I like to think they did this not because they were foolish, but to remind him of how comforting and encouraging the make-believe of religion can be for common folk" (Vonnegut, 121). First, I reject out of hand the false dichotomy set up between religion and science. Second, I find this sad. Lastly, I sense a bit of elitism from Vonnegut when dealing with the common folk who still hold religious sentiments. I disagree with his philosophy of religion.
While I disagree with Vonnegut on his philosophy of religion, I found myself nodding my head to his amusing and simplified aesthetic theory. "I was pleased to reply with an epistle which was frankly vengeful, since he and Father had screwed me out of a liberal arts college education: 'Dear Brother: This is almost like telling you about the birds and the bees,' I began. 'There are many good people who are beneficially stimulated by some, but not all, manmade arrangements of colors and shapes on flat surfaces, essentially nonsense. You yourself are gratified by some music, arrangements of noises, and again essentially nonsense. If I were to kick a bucket down the cellar stairs, and then say to you that the racket I had made was philosophically on a par with The Magic Flute, this would not be the beginning of a long and upsetting debate. An utterly satisfactory and complete response on your part would be, 'I like what Mozart did, and I hate what the bucket did'. Contemplating a purported work of art is a social activity. Either you have a rewarding time, or you don't. You don't have to say why afterward. You don't have to say anything. You are a justly revered experimentalist, dear Brother. If you really want to know whether your pictures are, as you say, 'art or not,' you must display them in a public place somewhere, and see if strangers like to look at them. That is the way the game is played. Let me know what happens. I went on: 'People capable of liking some paintings or prints or whatever can rarely do so without knowing something about the artist. Again, the situation is social rather than scientific. Any work of art is half of a conversation between two human beings, and it helps a lot to know who is talking at you. Does he or she have a reputation for seriousness, for religiosity, for suffering, for concupiscence, for rebellion, for sincerity, for jokes?" (Vonnegut, 167-168). Art as a conversation between two or more people. A simplified definition of what art is. I can dig it.
Overall, I loved this book. I can't wait to pick up another Vonnegut book in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)