Seriously, is there anything in the world better than running in the snow? I have always been a fan of running in the rain, which is the closest thing to snow that we have in Texas aside from the once-per-year free day from work/school, the day that DFW locks its doors for the ever popularly phrased winter blast, but today I actually was privileged to run through a light snow storm.
I have had a rough Christmas holiday to say the least. My basketball tournament was canceled several weeks ago, and so I have been forced, kicking and screaming, to spend the whole of my time away from school in the drudgery of the New Mexico mountains. Ugh! What is worse, I was also made to snow board for three solid days on a deserted mountain in Angel Fire, and now I might even have to do the same in Ruidoso later today. I have had the misfortune to read several novels, drink my body weight in coffee, watch more than my share of football and basketball, and even smoke some hand-rolled cigars on a sprawling porch while trying to distinguish between the smoke of the burning tobacco and the steam being naturally emitted from my warm mouth breathing into the chill air. All said, it has been tough.
Truly, the only bad thing about this trip is that it will have to end in a few days. Texas, I do not miss thee.
I have had a rough Christmas holiday to say the least. My basketball tournament was canceled several weeks ago, and so I have been forced, kicking and screaming, to spend the whole of my time away from school in the drudgery of the New Mexico mountains. Ugh! What is worse, I was also made to snow board for three solid days on a deserted mountain in Angel Fire, and now I might even have to do the same in Ruidoso later today. I have had the misfortune to read several novels, drink my body weight in coffee, watch more than my share of football and basketball, and even smoke some hand-rolled cigars on a sprawling porch while trying to distinguish between the smoke of the burning tobacco and the steam being naturally emitted from my warm mouth breathing into the chill air. All said, it has been tough.
Truly, the only bad thing about this trip is that it will have to end in a few days. Texas, I do not miss thee.
Maybe Philosophical Theology Cannot Exist
0 Comments Published by Michael on Friday, December 15, 2006 at 8:37 AM.
Chad, I have to disagree with you on your last comment, but I am thinking that we might always have to disagree, not because we are both too staunchly entrenched in our positions, but because we are in effect speaking two different languages.
You are approaching the topic theologically, which is your prerogative, and I cannot fault you for that, but your stance presupposes the existence of something that philosophical discourse cannot. I am not saying that God, in some form or another cannot be said to exist, but not the God of Christianity exactly. To prove a god exists does not take as much of a logical-leap, at least for me, as proving that this same god is one as written in one book. Theology is a worthy branch of study, and I am certainly not discounting it, but one cannot engage in a philosophical investigation by referencing the Bible. It would be like trying to have a scientific discussion of gravity and someone counter-arguing with Peter Pan's ability to fly in the children's book.
Perhaps by mixing theology and philosophy in the original premise I confused the issue. The pastor referred to sin specifically, and so I lazily used the term, but I should probably have clarified my terms before supposing they would be used by all in the same way I was using it. By sin, I was referring to depravity and lawlessness against a prevailing moral order. One need not appeal to Christianity for a notion of sinfulness in this way. I am robbing a Christian term of its autonomy as Christian-term, and I am widening its perameters for the sake of argument; lazy perhaps, but I am going to keep it as opposed to saying, "deviation from a moral-order within a given community" everytime I want to express the notion of sin.
Sinfulness, in the context divorced of exclusively-Christian connotations, cannot then, it seems to me, be anything except an effect. Sinfulness would have to result from the activity of sin, and so it struck a chord within me to hear a baby called that which it could not possibly be. I realize the context of the comment. He was not wrong, because according to the set of parameters that the church operates within, that being Scriptural-authority, it makes perfect sense, but so too does it make sense to Trekkies that Scottie can beam Capt. Kirk from one galaxy to the next. Divorced from the context of the worldview it exists under, it does not (once again, in my opinion) add up.
I also realize that, according to worldview-rationality, no one can escape presuppositions. I have mine; they are more than likely painfully obvious, but one of them is that the world is created by a god in an ordered, logical fashion. I choose not to discount miracles, which makes me a borderline 'whacko' in any philosophical circles, but apart from the miraculous, existence appears to have been ordered in an, well, ordered fashion.
I am not attempting, with few exceptions, to pick a fight in my posting, but I am trying to point out what appear to be inconsistencies that are worthy of consideration within the faith of which I claim standing.
You are approaching the topic theologically, which is your prerogative, and I cannot fault you for that, but your stance presupposes the existence of something that philosophical discourse cannot. I am not saying that God, in some form or another cannot be said to exist, but not the God of Christianity exactly. To prove a god exists does not take as much of a logical-leap, at least for me, as proving that this same god is one as written in one book. Theology is a worthy branch of study, and I am certainly not discounting it, but one cannot engage in a philosophical investigation by referencing the Bible. It would be like trying to have a scientific discussion of gravity and someone counter-arguing with Peter Pan's ability to fly in the children's book.
Perhaps by mixing theology and philosophy in the original premise I confused the issue. The pastor referred to sin specifically, and so I lazily used the term, but I should probably have clarified my terms before supposing they would be used by all in the same way I was using it. By sin, I was referring to depravity and lawlessness against a prevailing moral order. One need not appeal to Christianity for a notion of sinfulness in this way. I am robbing a Christian term of its autonomy as Christian-term, and I am widening its perameters for the sake of argument; lazy perhaps, but I am going to keep it as opposed to saying, "deviation from a moral-order within a given community" everytime I want to express the notion of sin.
Sinfulness, in the context divorced of exclusively-Christian connotations, cannot then, it seems to me, be anything except an effect. Sinfulness would have to result from the activity of sin, and so it struck a chord within me to hear a baby called that which it could not possibly be. I realize the context of the comment. He was not wrong, because according to the set of parameters that the church operates within, that being Scriptural-authority, it makes perfect sense, but so too does it make sense to Trekkies that Scottie can beam Capt. Kirk from one galaxy to the next. Divorced from the context of the worldview it exists under, it does not (once again, in my opinion) add up.
I also realize that, according to worldview-rationality, no one can escape presuppositions. I have mine; they are more than likely painfully obvious, but one of them is that the world is created by a god in an ordered, logical fashion. I choose not to discount miracles, which makes me a borderline 'whacko' in any philosophical circles, but apart from the miraculous, existence appears to have been ordered in an, well, ordered fashion.
I am not attempting, with few exceptions, to pick a fight in my posting, but I am trying to point out what appear to be inconsistencies that are worthy of consideration within the faith of which I claim standing.
Yep, you guessed it; my students have given me TWO new thermoses, or thermai. I believe that brings the count up to seven! I suppose part of the beauty or danger of drinking out a thermos everyday while teaching is that students have an easy default for gift-giving. I am not complaining, though....they can keep them coming...I love them.
Here are some pics of the new additions to our family; enjoy.
Here are some pics of the new additions to our family; enjoy.
I have a bit of pity for the working-world at large. For those who are finished with their education there is some measure of sadness, because I am not sure that you are allowed any longer to experience what it is that I am experiencing right now. The euphoria of taking that last test, turning in that last paper or attending that last class of the semester is like nothing I have experienced. It is not earth shattering, not like having a baby or getting married; let us keep it in its proper perspective, but there is the feeling of a great weight being lifted from your shoulders. Literally, your steps become immediately lighter, your thoughts brighten, and, in general, you feel as if the world is once open. Without question, these possibilities will be tempered with reality, the next month off will not be nearly what you think it will, concerns and deadlines of different varieties will take precedence, but you cannot think of that at a moment like this. For now, absolute joy.
Logical Fallacy
To open up a completely different can of worms, I have been troubled by something that I heard at church on Sunday morning during a baby dedication. Let me me begin with the prefatory-caviat that I am not arguing what Scripture does or does not say. I realize that faith is dependent upon belief in the absurd (ala Kierkegaard), but this is often entirely contrary to logic. Scripture speaks to three-day-old corpses being raised from the dead and ascending to heaven, but one cannot argue that this is consistent with reality-at-large. The miraculous aside, for that is an entirely different arena that need not be discussed here, there are certain doctrines that occasionally seem equally puzzling to my finite mind.
More to the point, on Sunday, while two babies were being prayed over by their parents' pastor, there was a phrase uttered that caught me a little off guard. It is not as if I had never heard such a thing, but it never resonated quite the same way as it did at that moment. His wording I cannot remember, but he made clear his stance that these babies were already covered in sin and in need of redemption one day. Perhaps he was not saying that they were already enmeshed in sinfulness, but he was indeed certain, as were all those in attendance, that they would be.
My problem with this is minor. Once again, laying aside Scripture, because that argument must always be circular in nature, it seems inherently illogical to call those babies sinful. They cannot possibly have sinned, could they? I grant that parents say that even babies show a tendency towards selfishness, vanity...etc, but is this sin? They have no rational thought nor conscience, so they cannot be held accountable for their actions any more than we might hold one accountable for one's fantasies while dreaming.
Even if the likelihood is that they will sin one day, and that is hardly arguable, the simple fact is that they have not yet, and therefore they should not yet be branded as sinners. It is like convicting someone who mutilates an animal as a child as a murderer, because statistically those who engage in the one act also engage in the other.
There is nothing theological or proven about this, I am too tired and lazy for that today, but it is stewing in my mind.
Logical Fallacy
To open up a completely different can of worms, I have been troubled by something that I heard at church on Sunday morning during a baby dedication. Let me me begin with the prefatory-caviat that I am not arguing what Scripture does or does not say. I realize that faith is dependent upon belief in the absurd (ala Kierkegaard), but this is often entirely contrary to logic. Scripture speaks to three-day-old corpses being raised from the dead and ascending to heaven, but one cannot argue that this is consistent with reality-at-large. The miraculous aside, for that is an entirely different arena that need not be discussed here, there are certain doctrines that occasionally seem equally puzzling to my finite mind.
More to the point, on Sunday, while two babies were being prayed over by their parents' pastor, there was a phrase uttered that caught me a little off guard. It is not as if I had never heard such a thing, but it never resonated quite the same way as it did at that moment. His wording I cannot remember, but he made clear his stance that these babies were already covered in sin and in need of redemption one day. Perhaps he was not saying that they were already enmeshed in sinfulness, but he was indeed certain, as were all those in attendance, that they would be.
My problem with this is minor. Once again, laying aside Scripture, because that argument must always be circular in nature, it seems inherently illogical to call those babies sinful. They cannot possibly have sinned, could they? I grant that parents say that even babies show a tendency towards selfishness, vanity...etc, but is this sin? They have no rational thought nor conscience, so they cannot be held accountable for their actions any more than we might hold one accountable for one's fantasies while dreaming.
Even if the likelihood is that they will sin one day, and that is hardly arguable, the simple fact is that they have not yet, and therefore they should not yet be branded as sinners. It is like convicting someone who mutilates an animal as a child as a murderer, because statistically those who engage in the one act also engage in the other.
There is nothing theological or proven about this, I am too tired and lazy for that today, but it is stewing in my mind.
Confucius Rolls Over In His Grave
1 Comments Published by Michael on Saturday, December 02, 2006 at 3:10 PM.
Confucius Rolls Over In His Grave
Is this really what Confucius had in mind when he began giving his aphoristic proverbs, from which, my assumption would be, the idea of fortune cookies in some way arose? My class and I just this day studied ancient China, Confucius in particular, and it was today that I received this fortune in my cookie after lunch: You have executive ability.
Ancient China, in its empiristic infancy, according to the geniuses behind the 9th-10th grade World History book, was built originally upon the backs of scholars and philosophers, Confucius being the chief of these, who sought to order a society rationally and with the intent of creating “whole” people. They sought to feed the souls, minds and bodies of the inhabitants of their country, and they used wisdom and ideals to do so. They were eventually destroyed by totalitarian types that thirsted for power and money just as Plato predicts in the Republic I might add, but the original academics behind China’s growth and unity were much more Socrates than Napoleon.
Now Orient-wisdom is reduced to nothing more than the same business model that the rest of the world operates under. With lottery numbers on the back and Tony Robbins-esque business pick-me-ups on the front, fortune cookies have reached their ultimate low, barring their future messages “Sponsored by McDonald’s”.
Where have the idealists gone? Have those people that created empires and traveled the world in search of truth and freedom of ideas been killed-off by the Westernization and American Dreaming of the entire globe. I watch my classes sleep through Plato and Homer, the foundations of literature, struggle through Hemingway and Fitzgerald, both of which are only a step above headline-writing in newspapers, and go entire summers without so much as glancing towards a book, and I am troubled. I’ve no answers; just troubled today.
