So when Jenny told me that she didn't think the relationship was going to be able to go any further I was surprised and disappointed but not horrified or depressed. We were both really careful about our hearts when it was good and bad. I am actually impressed with how God has changed my heart since Michelle. That was a shorter courtship but knocked me on my butt for a good year. It's a week later and though I still have lingering thoughts I'd say the only reason I'm not back on Eharmony is because of the price tag (if any decent souls want to take a collection that will be cool).
The hardest part I think was having to tell Gramps. I think he really had his hopes up. He's worried he's going to die before I get married. So I go over to tell him on the pretense of getting plums and hang out for a bit to just shoot the breeze with him and My Ling. He asks the normal question: why. I never ask a girl breaking up with me why. I'm surprised that so many people think it would be a legitimate thing to say to someone telling you they are breaking up with you. I know I have character flaws but I'd much rather hear about them close friends, family, the Bible my conscience, coworkers, talk show hosts, random strangers and terrorists than from the girl breaking up with me.
I share my insecurity that it is about how much money I make how it looks bad that I've spent the last ten years working in a restaurant. Then My Ling puts in her two cents saying "No, she doesn't break up with you because you're poor... she breaks up with you because you're ugly!" And then she laughs and laughs. I also laugh and if you can laugh about it you're okay.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Below is a Youtube link to a song that can make me cry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EzeW5KoPUI
The song is a story about a young teenager who's friend who is dying of cancer and how his pubescent romance complicates the situation. But it is not just out of sympathy for dealing with death that moves me but how what happens to us at that age casts such a long shadow and how little we can understand what it is that is happening to us. It is no surprise to me now how often my Mom would think and reflect on that time in her life.
When I was thirteen... ha ha I simply would not post all of the stuff that happened at that age but I can say that I am pretty sure the next couple of years were a mild case of PTS. Up until Christ revealed Himself to my heart that time pretty much unconsciously defined me. I remember Liz always saying "Michael why can't you just be happy?!" I had no answer and most of the time I didn't even know what she was talking about.
In Christ that time has not ceased to be influential but has a whole different direction. I think of the blind man in the gospel of John. He didn't forget that he had been blind but that made his belief and joy all the greater. That story certainly resonated with me when I first read it. Christ's influence has been like a stone dropped in a pool that ripples both directions of time, so not only my future has a hope but the despair of the past is dispelled with a clarity.
The real difficulty of my younger life was a feeling of existential abandonment and with dried eyes I saw that I had never been alone, that a strong hand had always been in my life from the darkest most difficult times till... well till Revelation chapter 21.
...
My meeting with the Special Ed program went well. I didn't completely charm the head of the department but that's fine. I will have to been in school for a heck of long time still but God's will be done. It is not like my life is really on hold anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EzeW5KoPUI
The song is a story about a young teenager who's friend who is dying of cancer and how his pubescent romance complicates the situation. But it is not just out of sympathy for dealing with death that moves me but how what happens to us at that age casts such a long shadow and how little we can understand what it is that is happening to us. It is no surprise to me now how often my Mom would think and reflect on that time in her life.
When I was thirteen... ha ha I simply would not post all of the stuff that happened at that age but I can say that I am pretty sure the next couple of years were a mild case of PTS. Up until Christ revealed Himself to my heart that time pretty much unconsciously defined me. I remember Liz always saying "Michael why can't you just be happy?!" I had no answer and most of the time I didn't even know what she was talking about.
In Christ that time has not ceased to be influential but has a whole different direction. I think of the blind man in the gospel of John. He didn't forget that he had been blind but that made his belief and joy all the greater. That story certainly resonated with me when I first read it. Christ's influence has been like a stone dropped in a pool that ripples both directions of time, so not only my future has a hope but the despair of the past is dispelled with a clarity.
The real difficulty of my younger life was a feeling of existential abandonment and with dried eyes I saw that I had never been alone, that a strong hand had always been in my life from the darkest most difficult times till... well till Revelation chapter 21.
...
My meeting with the Special Ed program went well. I didn't completely charm the head of the department but that's fine. I will have to been in school for a heck of long time still but God's will be done. It is not like my life is really on hold anyway.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
How to Ruin Your Life (Jemuel) with Long Digressons
Jemuel is going to be moving in with our sister Coral and the boys next month. I think it is a great thing for her and the boys and Jemuel. I cannot even imagine how hard it is to be a single mother... well maybe I can imagine since I was raised by one but the point is that it is not the best way to be a parent. Kids (and my nephews in particular) are wonderful... but they also require a lot of you (my nephews in particular). So Jemuel's moving in is a real godsend.
On the whole Jemuel's life is a contrast to the general guy response in our family which is "You are on your own." The women in our family are all high needs with children to take care of and most of the guys are off doing their own thing. I don't want to be too harsh against my brothers because we are all pretty much abandoned children as far as our fathers are concerned and our fathers were also abandoned children as far as their fathers are concerned. And really our family is just an extreme case of the national trend, parents divorcing with the husband's standard of living increasing while the wife's standard of living decreasing. The father visits on weekends, the mother takes care of the children Monday through Friday.
So Jemuel is (in very Jemuel fashion) breaking apart from mainstream culture... but he said something that I thought was worth exploring from a Christian perspective. He said that he thinks that moving in with Coral will be a big help for her and hopefully wouldn't ruin his life. Now if you are familiar with the family history this makes a lot of sense and if you don't know the details of the family history you aren't going to hear it here (you eager eared gossips!). But I want to unpack what he has said.
How I interpret the statement is that he wants to help but he also wants a degree of independence to pursue his calling into music, enjoy some peace and quiet from time to time and not end up broke. This is perfectly reasonable and I think this need should be protected even for parents with their own children. A husband and wife raising children owe it to their children to model a life which is not child centered. Now of course kids are a huge responsibility and need a lot of attention and care (and money) but this responsibility should not be mistaken as having a life which is child centered.
Certainly their are a fair amount of parents whose life might accurately be described as child centered. Many of these parents would even defend this position, "my children are my life" is an extreme statement but not so extreme as to evoke a shock in our society. I maintain that child centered thinking has been damaging to children and society.
The term was popularized by Dr. Benjamin Spock's book "Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care" and has largely been the norm of parenting in America for the last fifty years.
The problem with a child centered home is how it is experienced by the child. The child does not experience a home or world which is centered around the benefit of growing minds but rather a home and home which is centered around themselves. Such children come to see the world as existing for their own benefit and comfort and pleasure (as can be seen in the baby boomer generation).
Now Jemuel is only an actively concerned uncle, giving more than is expected in our selfish society. But in a father or husband to want to protect his calling to music, his desire for peace and quiet and to not go broke would be to go against the notion of a child centered home. Such pursuits would be called selfish and destructive to the child's well being. I believe the opposite is true.
A child who sees a father, mother (or uncle) who has a purpose or calling in their life which is not centered on that child sees an example of maturity they can grown into. A child who sees a father, mother (or uncle) who's stated and acted purpose in life is to care for that child the child sees a slave who they will not want to grow up to become because being served feels better than serving. In the same way a child who sees parents who love each other more actively then they love their own children sees an example of a marriage worth growing up into. A child who sees a world which does care for them but has other higher priorities gains access to a live which is not automatically self centered.
Now going back to that... even if a caring uncle (or father or mother) has strong boundaries to protect their calling, their sanity and their financial responsibilities they are still going to ruin their life. It is impossible to escape, everyone (every single one) who loves other people is walking down a path which invariably and without exception will always absolutely ruin that person's life... or at least it will feel that way sometimes.
Now it will only feel like they are ruining their life, but here the sociology 101 adage applies "things which are perceived to be real are real in their consequences." So if any person makes a decision to make a sacrifice for another person (like Jem is doing) what is going to happen is that they will be faced with a time when they will want something and they will have to choose between the thing they want and their commitment to care for someone else. Now the actual sacrifice may actually be a small one (no watching football this Sunday, getting out of bed thirty minutes early once) but it will feel like your life is being ruined.
This is not an issue of selfish and unselfish people, good people and bad people (mostly because there are no unselfish, good people!) but everyone will feel their desire as the core of their being, that is how it will be experienced. In retrospect it might seem like a small small thing, but in the grip of the desire it seems to give up this one thing will be the last step off of a cliff with no bottom, to this person it will feel like they are choosing between life and death, freedom and slavery, happiness and unhappiness.
Now Jemuel is a stand up guy, in my judgment (that high and mighty standard) capable of more unselfishness that most anyone I know. In the list of virtuous people he is somewhere between me and Ghandi... and I think he will gain a lot from moving in with Coral and the boys BUT that benefit will only come after he has stepped off of the cliff of ruining his life several times.
On the whole Jemuel's life is a contrast to the general guy response in our family which is "You are on your own." The women in our family are all high needs with children to take care of and most of the guys are off doing their own thing. I don't want to be too harsh against my brothers because we are all pretty much abandoned children as far as our fathers are concerned and our fathers were also abandoned children as far as their fathers are concerned. And really our family is just an extreme case of the national trend, parents divorcing with the husband's standard of living increasing while the wife's standard of living decreasing. The father visits on weekends, the mother takes care of the children Monday through Friday.
So Jemuel is (in very Jemuel fashion) breaking apart from mainstream culture... but he said something that I thought was worth exploring from a Christian perspective. He said that he thinks that moving in with Coral will be a big help for her and hopefully wouldn't ruin his life. Now if you are familiar with the family history this makes a lot of sense and if you don't know the details of the family history you aren't going to hear it here (you eager eared gossips!). But I want to unpack what he has said.
How I interpret the statement is that he wants to help but he also wants a degree of independence to pursue his calling into music, enjoy some peace and quiet from time to time and not end up broke. This is perfectly reasonable and I think this need should be protected even for parents with their own children. A husband and wife raising children owe it to their children to model a life which is not child centered. Now of course kids are a huge responsibility and need a lot of attention and care (and money) but this responsibility should not be mistaken as having a life which is child centered.
Certainly their are a fair amount of parents whose life might accurately be described as child centered. Many of these parents would even defend this position, "my children are my life" is an extreme statement but not so extreme as to evoke a shock in our society. I maintain that child centered thinking has been damaging to children and society.
The term was popularized by Dr. Benjamin Spock's book "Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care" and has largely been the norm of parenting in America for the last fifty years.
The problem with a child centered home is how it is experienced by the child. The child does not experience a home or world which is centered around the benefit of growing minds but rather a home and home which is centered around themselves. Such children come to see the world as existing for their own benefit and comfort and pleasure (as can be seen in the baby boomer generation).
Now Jemuel is only an actively concerned uncle, giving more than is expected in our selfish society. But in a father or husband to want to protect his calling to music, his desire for peace and quiet and to not go broke would be to go against the notion of a child centered home. Such pursuits would be called selfish and destructive to the child's well being. I believe the opposite is true.
A child who sees a father, mother (or uncle) who has a purpose or calling in their life which is not centered on that child sees an example of maturity they can grown into. A child who sees a father, mother (or uncle) who's stated and acted purpose in life is to care for that child the child sees a slave who they will not want to grow up to become because being served feels better than serving. In the same way a child who sees parents who love each other more actively then they love their own children sees an example of a marriage worth growing up into. A child who sees a world which does care for them but has other higher priorities gains access to a live which is not automatically self centered.
Now going back to that... even if a caring uncle (or father or mother) has strong boundaries to protect their calling, their sanity and their financial responsibilities they are still going to ruin their life. It is impossible to escape, everyone (every single one) who loves other people is walking down a path which invariably and without exception will always absolutely ruin that person's life... or at least it will feel that way sometimes.
Now it will only feel like they are ruining their life, but here the sociology 101 adage applies "things which are perceived to be real are real in their consequences." So if any person makes a decision to make a sacrifice for another person (like Jem is doing) what is going to happen is that they will be faced with a time when they will want something and they will have to choose between the thing they want and their commitment to care for someone else. Now the actual sacrifice may actually be a small one (no watching football this Sunday, getting out of bed thirty minutes early once) but it will feel like your life is being ruined.
This is not an issue of selfish and unselfish people, good people and bad people (mostly because there are no unselfish, good people!) but everyone will feel their desire as the core of their being, that is how it will be experienced. In retrospect it might seem like a small small thing, but in the grip of the desire it seems to give up this one thing will be the last step off of a cliff with no bottom, to this person it will feel like they are choosing between life and death, freedom and slavery, happiness and unhappiness.
Now Jemuel is a stand up guy, in my judgment (that high and mighty standard) capable of more unselfishness that most anyone I know. In the list of virtuous people he is somewhere between me and Ghandi... and I think he will gain a lot from moving in with Coral and the boys BUT that benefit will only come after he has stepped off of the cliff of ruining his life several times.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Ten Commandments
I was looking up the Apostle's Creed for some reason or another and read how the early church, the majority of whom could not read, would learn their faith by reciting the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Apostle's Creed.
I have been on a Ten Commandment's kick since then. I've been working on meditating their meaning on my life and seeking to live more by them... and yes Legalism Police I know I will not ever be made right with God by seeking to follow the Law. Still since I have been saved by my faith in Jesus Christ it makes sense that I would seek to obey Him.
Ten Commandments (summary)
"Our father, who is in heaven, holy be your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done, in heaven as in earth. Give me my daily bread, forgive me my sins as I forgive others. Do not tempt me but save me from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom forever and ever. Amen."
The Apostle's Creed isn't from scripture and was only used in the western part of the Roman empire and so is not a part of the Eastern Orthodox. But they share the same faith in Jesus Christ as all other Christians and I cannot see any objections they would have (but what do I know!):
"THE APOSTLES’ CREED
I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the
Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was
crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose
again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the
quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion
of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life
everlasting. Amen."
This was quoted directly from the Presbyterian "Book of Confession" I do not know if there is a less Elizabethian translation without sitteth's in them. In case anyone thinks that Eastern Orthodox would have issue with the "catholic church" remember that catholic means unified/universal. So I also believe in a catholic church because there is only one kind of Christian. Denomination is a fashion statement and does not make or necessarily exclude a person's relationship with Christ... and really I am not the guy who decides who is a Christian or not anyway.
I have been on a Ten Commandment's kick since then. I've been working on meditating their meaning on my life and seeking to live more by them... and yes Legalism Police I know I will not ever be made right with God by seeking to follow the Law. Still since I have been saved by my faith in Jesus Christ it makes sense that I would seek to obey Him.
Ten Commandments (summary)
- You shall have no other gods besides the Lord.
- You shall not make your own gods and serve or bow before them.
- You shall not speak the Lord's name in vain.
- You shall remember the sabbath and keep it holy.
- You shall honor your parents (its for your own good).
- You shall not murder.
- You shall not steal.
- you shall not lie.
- You shall not commit adultery.
- You shall not covet what other people have.
"Our father, who is in heaven, holy be your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done, in heaven as in earth. Give me my daily bread, forgive me my sins as I forgive others. Do not tempt me but save me from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom forever and ever. Amen."
The Apostle's Creed isn't from scripture and was only used in the western part of the Roman empire and so is not a part of the Eastern Orthodox. But they share the same faith in Jesus Christ as all other Christians and I cannot see any objections they would have (but what do I know!):
"THE APOSTLES’ CREED
I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the
Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was
crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose
again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the
quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion
of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life
everlasting. Amen."
This was quoted directly from the Presbyterian "Book of Confession" I do not know if there is a less Elizabethian translation without sitteth's in them. In case anyone thinks that Eastern Orthodox would have issue with the "catholic church" remember that catholic means unified/universal. So I also believe in a catholic church because there is only one kind of Christian. Denomination is a fashion statement and does not make or necessarily exclude a person's relationship with Christ... and really I am not the guy who decides who is a Christian or not anyway.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
"Creepy Guy Teachers"
I was having a conversation with a group of friends about my experience at teaching so far. I have just gotten used to the 1st grade class I am placed in and was talking about the difference between teaching 1st and 4th grade. I concluded with the often repeated statement that I am just as comfortable with 1st and 4th graders but think that 4th graders are a little more comfortable with me than 1st graders are.
One person, meaning to be supportive, added "Plus you don't want to seem like creepy guy teacher."
My initial response was that actually there is a great support for men teachers for younger grades, especially because of the high rate of fatherlessness.
I never thought of the profession in terms of gender role. My dad wasn't around very often in the second half of my childhood but when he was a teacher. And Gramps had plenty to say about hard work and the correct way to use a lawn mower (he still does!). I have been brought up thinking of instructing and educating as a masculine endeavor. To be sure I have had no shortage of women in the family who were very interested in the importance of education and I could say that they were the stronger influence but the point is that in my background there would be nothing considered strange or unnatural with a man developing the mind and character of a child.
Well, I guess in this department I am an unusual case. The most common reaction from adults to learn that I am going into elementary teaching is first surprise followed by the same encouragement "They need more men teachers."
But the more I thought about the friend's statement about creepy guy teachers the more insulted I feel. The underlying meaning is that many people feel (and are justified in feeling) that men cannot be trusted around young children. My experience has been that this feeling is particularly strong in churches.
I know a lot of people who have told me that they were abused as children and I am under no illusions as to how very common and how damaging it is. I share the militancy of abuse survivors to ensure that children must be protected from this abuse... but one of the damages done by abuse is the destruction of trust and an enduring suspicion against all people (and men in particular).
This suspicion has touched the national psyche so that there is a commonly held view that there is something unnatural and dangerous about a man who is around children. If I saw a man watching children at a playground it would most certainly enter my mind that he might be "a stranger" or unsafe and I should keep an eye on him... and I'm the guy at the playground most of the time!
I'm not really insulted by the friend's comment but am frustrated because there is no defense that could be given. Nothing is more suspicious than a denial!
But the worst part is how much is lost because of the removal of men from the raising of children. I was exceedingly fortunate in the quality of the women who helped raise me but there is something all together different in how and what was little was contributed by the men. I learned more than how to fix a flat tire and mow a lawn from Gramps. Dad's laughable attempt at talking about the birds and bees made a much deeper impression on me than I realized "So... uhh... I'm guessing you guys like girls now? You... uhh... hold hands... well it gets much more complicated after that."
The men in my life were imperfect (like the women) but their influence was literally undercut and much of this was influenced by a fear and distrust against all men against which they had not deserved. And so the world misses out.
Incompletely unrelated news I know a lot of women who ask "Where are all the real men?"
One person, meaning to be supportive, added "Plus you don't want to seem like creepy guy teacher."
My initial response was that actually there is a great support for men teachers for younger grades, especially because of the high rate of fatherlessness.
I never thought of the profession in terms of gender role. My dad wasn't around very often in the second half of my childhood but when he was a teacher. And Gramps had plenty to say about hard work and the correct way to use a lawn mower (he still does!). I have been brought up thinking of instructing and educating as a masculine endeavor. To be sure I have had no shortage of women in the family who were very interested in the importance of education and I could say that they were the stronger influence but the point is that in my background there would be nothing considered strange or unnatural with a man developing the mind and character of a child.
Well, I guess in this department I am an unusual case. The most common reaction from adults to learn that I am going into elementary teaching is first surprise followed by the same encouragement "They need more men teachers."
But the more I thought about the friend's statement about creepy guy teachers the more insulted I feel. The underlying meaning is that many people feel (and are justified in feeling) that men cannot be trusted around young children. My experience has been that this feeling is particularly strong in churches.
I know a lot of people who have told me that they were abused as children and I am under no illusions as to how very common and how damaging it is. I share the militancy of abuse survivors to ensure that children must be protected from this abuse... but one of the damages done by abuse is the destruction of trust and an enduring suspicion against all people (and men in particular).
This suspicion has touched the national psyche so that there is a commonly held view that there is something unnatural and dangerous about a man who is around children. If I saw a man watching children at a playground it would most certainly enter my mind that he might be "a stranger" or unsafe and I should keep an eye on him... and I'm the guy at the playground most of the time!
I'm not really insulted by the friend's comment but am frustrated because there is no defense that could be given. Nothing is more suspicious than a denial!
But the worst part is how much is lost because of the removal of men from the raising of children. I was exceedingly fortunate in the quality of the women who helped raise me but there is something all together different in how and what was little was contributed by the men. I learned more than how to fix a flat tire and mow a lawn from Gramps. Dad's laughable attempt at talking about the birds and bees made a much deeper impression on me than I realized "So... uhh... I'm guessing you guys like girls now? You... uhh... hold hands... well it gets much more complicated after that."
The men in my life were imperfect (like the women) but their influence was literally undercut and much of this was influenced by a fear and distrust against all men against which they had not deserved. And so the world misses out.
Incompletely unrelated news I know a lot of women who ask "Where are all the real men?"
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Why Study Philosophy
"You have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expression 'being.' we, however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed."- Plato Sophist
When I posted that I was reading Martin Heidegger a friend commented "Why not slam your head into a wall, it will be quicker and less painful, but with the same result." In one sense it was a ridiculous statement as he specialized in engineering in college while I specialized in professional philosophy. It might be like me suggesting that since I, myself, never understood calculus that it must be without meaning and not worth another person studying.
But really it might be thoughtful to ask if philosophy (or metaphysics more specifically... or ontology much more specifically) has any value as a study. A common American, pragmatic, response is "What is the practical application of philosophy?" but this question has an unstated (and rarely explored) assumption concerning what it valuable. The pragmatic who says "What is the practical application of your study" actually means "Can your study produce technology* by which I might use for my own purposes?" This question might be valid, especially if I am asking for funding from the pragmatic, but as it is stated disguises itself as a moralistic question whereas the question as I believe it to be is not concerned with right or wrong but the application of power.
It saddens me to answer in the affirmative, philosophy has displayed powerful practical (that is technological) for the use of those who grasp it. It is without great reflection that we learn that between 1600 and 1800 monarchy was near completely eliminated in Western Europe and without reflection the role "ideology" has played in the mobilization for war since then. In no time in human history has what people believe been as influential, powerful or dangerous and this has occurred through the application of philosophy. Of course if you were to ask the people affected by the application of philosophy they would not recognize themselves as such. They would see themselves as motivated by the truth, be it "freedom" "racial purity" "revolution" or whatever. They would see themselves merely as "on the right side."
Certainly history has shown that those who have no interest in philosophy can be influenced, if not controlled, by it. But this is not why I value philosophy. Neither is it to resist the power others might have on me through the application of philosophy, though this would be one of the other practical advantages of philosophy. Certainly if my motivation was power (or even just for protection against the power of others) philosophy as a primary means would be one of the more round-about means to that end. It would be more expedient to study law, warfare and economics with just enough philosophy to ensure you are autonomous enough to not "drink the cool-aid" than to make philosophy the the focus of the advancement of my own purposes.
The reason I study philosophy and Heidegger is because (despite its possible round-about practical applications) that philosophy is a means for approaching meaningfulness. Granted, philosophy is not an absolute means to approaching meaningfulness. One need only meet a wise and learn'd philosopher quite capable of distinguishing between Kant and Descartes but who is little more than a dusty and little read collection of quotations. But still there is another kind of stereotype which is typified by the young idealist who is searching for truth. That idealist often finds himself drawn towards philosophy and though it might lead him in circles and to all kinds of intellectual fantasies we must admit there is something particular about philosophy, as a subject, which naturally attracts those who are interested in what is actually true.
It should come to as no surprise that philosophy, as a means to meaningfulness, is something which must be left behind or rejected as an ultimate path in favor of a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ... but my Bible study starts soon so I'm out of time.
*by "technology" we could include non-physical techniques of persuasion such as advertising.
When I posted that I was reading Martin Heidegger a friend commented "Why not slam your head into a wall, it will be quicker and less painful, but with the same result." In one sense it was a ridiculous statement as he specialized in engineering in college while I specialized in professional philosophy. It might be like me suggesting that since I, myself, never understood calculus that it must be without meaning and not worth another person studying.
But really it might be thoughtful to ask if philosophy (or metaphysics more specifically... or ontology much more specifically) has any value as a study. A common American, pragmatic, response is "What is the practical application of philosophy?" but this question has an unstated (and rarely explored) assumption concerning what it valuable. The pragmatic who says "What is the practical application of your study" actually means "Can your study produce technology* by which I might use for my own purposes?" This question might be valid, especially if I am asking for funding from the pragmatic, but as it is stated disguises itself as a moralistic question whereas the question as I believe it to be is not concerned with right or wrong but the application of power.
It saddens me to answer in the affirmative, philosophy has displayed powerful practical (that is technological) for the use of those who grasp it. It is without great reflection that we learn that between 1600 and 1800 monarchy was near completely eliminated in Western Europe and without reflection the role "ideology" has played in the mobilization for war since then. In no time in human history has what people believe been as influential, powerful or dangerous and this has occurred through the application of philosophy. Of course if you were to ask the people affected by the application of philosophy they would not recognize themselves as such. They would see themselves as motivated by the truth, be it "freedom" "racial purity" "revolution" or whatever. They would see themselves merely as "on the right side."
Certainly history has shown that those who have no interest in philosophy can be influenced, if not controlled, by it. But this is not why I value philosophy. Neither is it to resist the power others might have on me through the application of philosophy, though this would be one of the other practical advantages of philosophy. Certainly if my motivation was power (or even just for protection against the power of others) philosophy as a primary means would be one of the more round-about means to that end. It would be more expedient to study law, warfare and economics with just enough philosophy to ensure you are autonomous enough to not "drink the cool-aid" than to make philosophy the the focus of the advancement of my own purposes.
The reason I study philosophy and Heidegger is because (despite its possible round-about practical applications) that philosophy is a means for approaching meaningfulness. Granted, philosophy is not an absolute means to approaching meaningfulness. One need only meet a wise and learn'd philosopher quite capable of distinguishing between Kant and Descartes but who is little more than a dusty and little read collection of quotations. But still there is another kind of stereotype which is typified by the young idealist who is searching for truth. That idealist often finds himself drawn towards philosophy and though it might lead him in circles and to all kinds of intellectual fantasies we must admit there is something particular about philosophy, as a subject, which naturally attracts those who are interested in what is actually true.
It should come to as no surprise that philosophy, as a means to meaningfulness, is something which must be left behind or rejected as an ultimate path in favor of a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ... but my Bible study starts soon so I'm out of time.
*by "technology" we could include non-physical techniques of persuasion such as advertising.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Notes on Avatar
Hey spoilers... but really they don't spoil the movie:
- My first reaction to the movie was a hatred for the 3D glasses. Yeah, yeah, so cool but really I think the huge screen was cool enough and don't care if things look like they are floating in front of me. I don't think anyone even unconsciously stops thinking they are in a movie theater because of special effects. A good story can do that but smell-o-vision can not.
- The movie plot is a clear cut and paste archetype: Dances With Wolves, The Last Samaria being the examples that come to mind: a warrior, usually wounded in order to represent their spiritual crisis, leaves his home country to a wilderness frontier place where he encounters a foreign, primitive seeming culture which adopts in order to learn about the new-coming invaders. The warrior learns to respect the "primitive" culture and to understand that it is a sophisticated society with great spiritual lessons. The old culture rears its ugly head and the warrior must reject his old culture in order to help his new family... usually this results in a defeat that is a moral victory since the sophisticated spiritual culture did not betray their values even when faced with destruction. The wounded warrior generally survives the destruction and acts as a social critic... I mean truth teller about the spiritual deadness of his home society.
- My general reaction to the wounded warrior adoption plot is that you don't have to go to Japan to find a society which is spiritually based... you just have to go to a decent church. I'm sure that if Japan made a movie like this the wounded warrior would be adopted by a Christian missionary because the unfamiliar nature of the society would mask the imperfections found in all human societies. Really if there is some kind of spiritual truth which that foreign society was tapping into... that spiritual truth can be found in the country, city and suburb. If there is a God He is God everywhere, not just special places.
- Though I very much in favor in living a life which is spiritually based and not controlled by consumerism and vice (I believe there is a natural relation between the two). I really liked Jake's assessment of tempting the tree people out of the tree "We have nothing they want, what are we going to give them... Bud Light? Yeah right."
- I really liked Sigourney Weaver's character... though it was strange (and I'm sure no accident) that she was the only one of the tree people with large boobs. Still I like that kind of tree hugging liberal (and they love it when I refer to them that way).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)