[This reply to Thorgerson's post, The Incomparable, was sent in by the Bourgeois Brother in Georgia.]
I found the article compelling as I spent the month of January teaching the first chapter of James to an adult Sunday School class. James's exhortation to the reader is that trials will occur in the life of a believer. The author also gives an insight to the purpose of trials and the right response of the heart of a believer. Quite simply, trials are essential yet often unfortunate events in our lives that are designed to strengthen our faith. The concept of testing with the purpose of strengthening is like a young bird flapping its wings all the while not letting go of the branch until it is strong enough to fly.
James points out the initial response to a trial is not to question God's sovereingty, but to "consider it joy" (v. 2). I can imagine to those who do not know the love of God that statement can appear to be sadistic, yet to a believer it puts a trial into proper perspective by having an understanding mind. With a right understanding comes the right approach to the patience needed in a trial (vv. 3-5). The type of patience noted here requires the individual take an active pursuit of God seeking Him in prayer rather than trying to shelter in place hoping the storm of life will pass over. The prayers offered during this time of patience are really a request for wisdom -- as John MacArthur puts it, "when you go through the trials of life, whatever they might be, it is the intention of God that you recognize the bankruptcy of human reason and the answers that you might get from other people . . . True wisdom, the supernatural wisdom needed to understand the trials of life is not available in the world around us. 'Destruction and death say, We have heard its fame with our ears.' Destruction and death have heard about it. They've not found it . . . they do not find it. And then verse 23 [of Job 28], 'God understands its way and He knows its place.'"
James finishes the section (vv. 6-8) with what I feel is a description of many today -- those who want God to help them in a time of need, but do not want give Him proper place in their life the rest of the time. When trials occur, these double-minded begin to question God, blame God and ultimately reject God. While this usually characterizes a non-believer, Christians are also guilty. Ultimately, as the cycle comes to completion, the right response to trials will bring forth humility. It is when we have been humbled that God can transform our lives with a renewed spirit that seeks after Him.
Please also consider this article by John Piper in World.
DH
Friday, February 18, 2005
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Darwin Day
My apologies to my avid following. The night after my previous post, I attended the Darwin Celebration with the intent of producing some intrepid reporting. The facts of life happened. Imagine I’m reporting for your favorite weekly as opposed to daily.
I walked into a lecture hall of about 200, packed with students and faculty. At the door I was handed a pamphlet crammed with 10pt font, and the greeting: “This isn’t part of the official syllabus, but make sure you take a look at this.”
“The Battle for the Future Will Be Fought From Here Forward: you think you know … but you have no idea … just what Bush has in store for … you .. us … the world … our future!” The first paragraph: “Straight up – Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be plunged into a high-tech dark ages.” I won’t dwell on this, but it concluded with a call for revolution under Chairman Bob Avakian.
I will not describe all the participants – their names are accessible at the link on my previous post and you can google them if you’re curious. Suffice it to say that this was not a gathering of extreme views: these were real live marketeable scientists and recognized promoters of Darwinism.
Eric Meikle gave structure to the evening both beginning and ending the presentations, and so his comments were intended to provide context for the remarks from the scientists. It is on these ideas that I will dwell. If you are interested in what Jameson, Dumbacher or Gillespie (I didn’t have time to stay for Mishler) had to say, I can pass on some notes.
Meikle’s talk was a sort of state of the union address. The goal of his parent organization (National Center for Science Education) is to “support and defend evolution in schools today.” He began by showing graphics of states where anti-evolution bills have been proposed in legislatures, and states where “problems” have been reported. Putting the two graphics on top of one another revealed that nearly all states in the US in the last three years have had a “problem.” This warned the Darwinists to beware of the Bible belt myth [“For example, Pennsylvania is the worst state in the country”].
“Problem” was a key word for Meikle. This was the term consistently applied to any challenge (formal, such as ID or informal, such as a parent asking that evolution be taught as a theory) to evolution. Thus, challengers to evolution are not intelligent people, they are not highly trained philosophers and scientists with legitimate querries, they are problems.
Next a strategy tip: Setting the argument up as God vs. Darwin/Science does not work well for the Darwinists. Rather, Darwinists need to realize that the opposition has “almost nothing to do with science. It is really a fight within religions … really a philosophical and metaphysical conflict.” The debate is “never going to be settled with science … not about scientific procedures.”
To help orient his audience, Meikle provided a continuum of origins orientation: (couldn't paste my reproduction, here's the jist)
"Flat Earthers" -----> "Geocentrists"----->Young Earth----->Old Earth----->Theistic Evolution----->Materialistic Evolution
Young and Old Earthers were grouped together into Intelligent Design Theory (IDT). He then went on a rant that involved political cartoons and quotes from some old school Biblical literalits and concluded, “I’m making fun of them, but sometimes they deserve it.”
IDT was characterized as a modern variant of an old idea (Wm. Paley – early 19th c. was cited as an example): the modern equivalents are Michael Behe and Wm. Dembski. At this point it came out that the main charge against ID theorists is that they refuse to explain their alternative. They coyly offer that the world could have been created by an intelligent being: ranging in possiblities from the Christian God to aliens. “Are you going to teach in 10th grade science class that time-travelling space aliens created DNA?”
His conclusion involved a study of The Wedge organization, Center for Science and Culture, and the evolution of their name and banner since the 90’s. They have noticeably “gotten away from being so religious.” But based on their roots, they are really a “religious movement to promote theism over materialism … replacing science with theism.” The Wedge strategy is to conflate methodological materialism with philosophical materialism, and in debate their goal is “to confuse these two always, always, always. Thank you.”
Perhaps the most interesting Q & A exchange was this (I summarize—no detailed notes):
Q: Why is this [people refusing to accept evolution] specifically a problem in the U.S. as opposed to Europe, where there does not seem to be much resistance?
A: First, America has to deal with the strong contingent of Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestants. This is a problem because in American education is still predominately locally controlled rather than government controlled.
Some thoughts:
First, ignorance. Secondly, I like IDT. Third, why the politics, kids?
The use of a graph that allocated IDT as simply one step above Geocentrism was incredible. However, that is just rhetoric. Meikle clearly had read his ID books. However, the audience reaction was what clued me in to people just not knowing. No one in the room knew anyone who did not believe in Evolution. They were able to laugh about such people without any idea that Phil Johnson’s ideas mean something more to their world than those of Pope Urban VII. One of the main goals of the talk clearly was to convince the audience that people (like me) were real.
Secondly, IDT, which I think is the most exciting philosophical movement of our time, is accomplishing its goal. IDT precisely wants to show that methodoligical materialism has been unequivocably wedded to philosophical materialism since Darwin. Darwin’s theory carries with it metaphysical implications, and these implications have been transmitted part and parcel with the principles of scientific inquiry. Meikle (at least) seemed to understand this challenge, though he publicly gave it little credence.
Last, in a classic eat your own words move, Meikle, immediately after accusing IDT of failing to make distinctions between philosophy and method and denying that the one necessitated the other, implied that if we only had big federal government we could solve the “problems.” That combined with the friendly handout I received from the front desk guys made me seriously question the forthrightness of his denial.
I walked into a lecture hall of about 200, packed with students and faculty. At the door I was handed a pamphlet crammed with 10pt font, and the greeting: “This isn’t part of the official syllabus, but make sure you take a look at this.”
“The Battle for the Future Will Be Fought From Here Forward: you think you know … but you have no idea … just what Bush has in store for … you .. us … the world … our future!” The first paragraph: “Straight up – Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be plunged into a high-tech dark ages.” I won’t dwell on this, but it concluded with a call for revolution under Chairman Bob Avakian.
I will not describe all the participants – their names are accessible at the link on my previous post and you can google them if you’re curious. Suffice it to say that this was not a gathering of extreme views: these were real live marketeable scientists and recognized promoters of Darwinism.
Eric Meikle gave structure to the evening both beginning and ending the presentations, and so his comments were intended to provide context for the remarks from the scientists. It is on these ideas that I will dwell. If you are interested in what Jameson, Dumbacher or Gillespie (I didn’t have time to stay for Mishler) had to say, I can pass on some notes.
Meikle’s talk was a sort of state of the union address. The goal of his parent organization (National Center for Science Education) is to “support and defend evolution in schools today.” He began by showing graphics of states where anti-evolution bills have been proposed in legislatures, and states where “problems” have been reported. Putting the two graphics on top of one another revealed that nearly all states in the US in the last three years have had a “problem.” This warned the Darwinists to beware of the Bible belt myth [“For example, Pennsylvania is the worst state in the country”].
“Problem” was a key word for Meikle. This was the term consistently applied to any challenge (formal, such as ID or informal, such as a parent asking that evolution be taught as a theory) to evolution. Thus, challengers to evolution are not intelligent people, they are not highly trained philosophers and scientists with legitimate querries, they are problems.
Next a strategy tip: Setting the argument up as God vs. Darwin/Science does not work well for the Darwinists. Rather, Darwinists need to realize that the opposition has “almost nothing to do with science. It is really a fight within religions … really a philosophical and metaphysical conflict.” The debate is “never going to be settled with science … not about scientific procedures.”
To help orient his audience, Meikle provided a continuum of origins orientation: (couldn't paste my reproduction, here's the jist)
"Flat Earthers" -----> "Geocentrists"----->Young Earth----->Old Earth----->Theistic Evolution----->Materialistic Evolution
Young and Old Earthers were grouped together into Intelligent Design Theory (IDT). He then went on a rant that involved political cartoons and quotes from some old school Biblical literalits and concluded, “I’m making fun of them, but sometimes they deserve it.”
IDT was characterized as a modern variant of an old idea (Wm. Paley – early 19th c. was cited as an example): the modern equivalents are Michael Behe and Wm. Dembski. At this point it came out that the main charge against ID theorists is that they refuse to explain their alternative. They coyly offer that the world could have been created by an intelligent being: ranging in possiblities from the Christian God to aliens. “Are you going to teach in 10th grade science class that time-travelling space aliens created DNA?”
His conclusion involved a study of The Wedge organization, Center for Science and Culture, and the evolution of their name and banner since the 90’s. They have noticeably “gotten away from being so religious.” But based on their roots, they are really a “religious movement to promote theism over materialism … replacing science with theism.” The Wedge strategy is to conflate methodological materialism with philosophical materialism, and in debate their goal is “to confuse these two always, always, always. Thank you.”
Perhaps the most interesting Q & A exchange was this (I summarize—no detailed notes):
Q: Why is this [people refusing to accept evolution] specifically a problem in the U.S. as opposed to Europe, where there does not seem to be much resistance?
A: First, America has to deal with the strong contingent of Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestants. This is a problem because in American education is still predominately locally controlled rather than government controlled.
Some thoughts:
First, ignorance. Secondly, I like IDT. Third, why the politics, kids?
The use of a graph that allocated IDT as simply one step above Geocentrism was incredible. However, that is just rhetoric. Meikle clearly had read his ID books. However, the audience reaction was what clued me in to people just not knowing. No one in the room knew anyone who did not believe in Evolution. They were able to laugh about such people without any idea that Phil Johnson’s ideas mean something more to their world than those of Pope Urban VII. One of the main goals of the talk clearly was to convince the audience that people (like me) were real.
Secondly, IDT, which I think is the most exciting philosophical movement of our time, is accomplishing its goal. IDT precisely wants to show that methodoligical materialism has been unequivocably wedded to philosophical materialism since Darwin. Darwin’s theory carries with it metaphysical implications, and these implications have been transmitted part and parcel with the principles of scientific inquiry. Meikle (at least) seemed to understand this challenge, though he publicly gave it little credence.
Last, in a classic eat your own words move, Meikle, immediately after accusing IDT of failing to make distinctions between philosophy and method and denying that the one necessitated the other, implied that if we only had big federal government we could solve the “problems.” That combined with the friendly handout I received from the front desk guys made me seriously question the forthrightness of his denial.
Republic 329d2-4
But, indeed, about these things and the things concerning relatives there is one cause, not old age, Socrates, but the character of human beings.
[Nearing the end of Cephalus's speech on old age. The comment about relatives refers to Cephalus's earlier statement that some of his old friends "bewail the abuse of old people from relatives. . ."
Note that in some ways C.'s diagnosis of why people are disgruntled in old age is similar to Socrates's (see book 4, 441c and following), though S. and C. will disagree about the benefit of money.]
[Nearing the end of Cephalus's speech on old age. The comment about relatives refers to Cephalus's earlier statement that some of his old friends "bewail the abuse of old people from relatives. . ."
Note that in some ways C.'s diagnosis of why people are disgruntled in old age is similar to Socrates's (see book 4, 441c and following), though S. and C. will disagree about the benefit of money.]
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Republic 329c5-d1
For altogether much peace and freedom comes to be in old age: whenever the striving desires are made to cease and then slacken, that saying of Sophocles altogether comes to be: it is to have been released from very many, and raging, tyrants.
[Picking up where I left off. This is Cephalus coming near the end of his speech about the wonders of old age, when the desire for sex leaves an individual.
I'm afraid that my translation of this sentence is much like the rest of my translation: overly literal and wooden. But I'm pretty sure that I don't yet understand Plato well enough to make certain decisions about matters of style. Perhaps when I'm done I'll have learned enough to go back over this again.]
[Picking up where I left off. This is Cephalus coming near the end of his speech about the wonders of old age, when the desire for sex leaves an individual.
I'm afraid that my translation of this sentence is much like the rest of my translation: overly literal and wooden. But I'm pretty sure that I don't yet understand Plato well enough to make certain decisions about matters of style. Perhaps when I'm done I'll have learned enough to go back over this again.]
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Eason Jordan Resigns from CNN
This is big news; well, at least it's big news in the blogosphere, which isn't to say that it's unimportant but that you won't find very much coverage of the issue in MSM.
Michelle Malkin has a history of what happened. The brief history: Jordan (the head of CNN) is reported to have said at a media conference in Davos, Switzerland, that American military forces have deliberately targeted and killed journalists. I say "reported to have said" because officials of the conference refused to release a videotape of the event and Jordan says his remarks were taken out of context. Some journalists, a few members of Congress, and an ordinary citizen were present and challenged Jordan's claim. They later broke the story in the blogosophere while MSM had no coverage until one or two days ago.
Instapundit has a roundup of links.
Michelle Malkin has a history of what happened. The brief history: Jordan (the head of CNN) is reported to have said at a media conference in Davos, Switzerland, that American military forces have deliberately targeted and killed journalists. I say "reported to have said" because officials of the conference refused to release a videotape of the event and Jordan says his remarks were taken out of context. Some journalists, a few members of Congress, and an ordinary citizen were present and challenged Jordan's claim. They later broke the story in the blogosophere while MSM had no coverage until one or two days ago.
Instapundit has a roundup of links.
Friday, February 11, 2005
LA Times Retracts Statement about Dobson
Patterico has the details here, and the link is to his site because the LA Times requires registration.
You'll recall that Dobson released a statement clarifying what he said about SpongeBob about a week ago.
You'll recall that Dobson released a statement clarifying what he said about SpongeBob about a week ago.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Our Father among the Saints
Today I received a departmental email inviting me to a week of celebration for ... yes, that's right, Charles Darwin's 196th birthday. Tomorrow night is the feature lecture: "Setting the Record straight". The entire program seems centered around debunking the ID fellows: those dastardly Darwin Challengers led by that annoying Berkeley Emeritus, P. Johnson.
For your enjoyment, here is the schedule of events. I plan on trying to get in, so hopefully I will have some intrepid reporting tomorrow night ... developing ...
Please come help celebrate Darwin's birthday, with events presented by the Bay Area Biosystematists, UC Berkeley Entomology Students Organization, and the Essig Museum of Entomology:
Throughout the week, there will be lunchtime screenings of the NOVA/WGBH "Evolution" series, Feb 7th-11th from 12-1pm, 306 Wellman Hall
ON FEBRUARY 8th:
*Essig Museum Open House, 1pm-5pm, 211 Wellman.
Specimen displays and tours at 1:30, 2:30, 3:30, 4:30.
*Darwin's Birthday Cake and Toasting, 5:15pm, Essig Museum (211 Wellman)
*BABS Dinner, Mandarin Garden
*BABS Lecture
"Setting the Record Straight" (vignettes on modern Darwinism and anti-evolutionism).
Featuring speakers from UCB, CAS, and NCSE, including faculty whose work has been cited as "evidence against evolution."
1. Welcome (Kipling Will)
2. Introduction and overview of anti-evolutionism (Eric Meikle)
3. The knowledge of Darwin's time and development of the basis for our present knowledge (David Jameson)
4. Genomics and Darwin (Brent Mishler)
5. Vertebrate examples used by anti-evolutionists (Jack Dumbacher)
6. Anti-evolutionist (mis)use of Hawaiian spiders: evidence for evolution (Rosie Gillespie)
7. What can we do? (Eric Meikle)
8. Questions and discussion
For your enjoyment, here is the schedule of events. I plan on trying to get in, so hopefully I will have some intrepid reporting tomorrow night ... developing ...
Please come help celebrate Darwin's birthday, with events presented by the Bay Area Biosystematists, UC Berkeley Entomology Students Organization, and the Essig Museum of Entomology:
Throughout the week, there will be lunchtime screenings of the NOVA/WGBH "Evolution" series, Feb 7th-11th from 12-1pm, 306 Wellman Hall
ON FEBRUARY 8th:
*Essig Museum Open House, 1pm-5pm, 211 Wellman.
Specimen displays and tours at 1:30, 2:30, 3:30, 4:30.
*Darwin's Birthday Cake and Toasting, 5:15pm, Essig Museum (211 Wellman)
*BABS Dinner, Mandarin Garden
*BABS Lecture
"Setting the Record Straight" (vignettes on modern Darwinism and anti-evolutionism).
Featuring speakers from UCB, CAS, and NCSE, including faculty whose work has been cited as "evidence against evolution."
1. Welcome (Kipling Will)
2. Introduction and overview of anti-evolutionism (Eric Meikle)
3. The knowledge of Darwin's time and development of the basis for our present knowledge (David Jameson)
4. Genomics and Darwin (Brent Mishler)
5. Vertebrate examples used by anti-evolutionists (Jack Dumbacher)
6. Anti-evolutionist (mis)use of Hawaiian spiders: evidence for evolution (Rosie Gillespie)
7. What can we do? (Eric Meikle)
8. Questions and discussion
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Super Bowl Blog
Thought I'd try this for fun. I may only last an hour or so; no promises.
Anthem
Fitting. Whoever thinks up these ceremonies did well on this. America is at once the most criticized nation on earth, and the most openly self-critical. Whatever we all think of the war in Iraq, we are able to enjoy our most physically gifted citizens playing games into retirement because of the sacrifice of so many -- present and past. We rage against the machine, and yet it is the 'machine' that lets us have the luxury of raging against it while gladly taking social security checks and food stamps. We must not forget these things amidst our healthy doses of criticism. I've never heard the national anthem sung by a full choir before. I like it a lot more than a solo.
Coin Toss
I have never heard a ref explain a coin toss at a major game without stuttering/stumbling through the first several sentences. They always seem like they forget what they are saying because they are listening to themselves on the loudspeaker.
(I) 14:30
The Eagles should get back the fumble. Donovan McNabb is a good quarterback and fun to watch. However, I will be cheering for the Pats. As I tried to explain to some friends on friday, I like sports dynasties when they are built by a lot of hard work combined with talent and determination. For this reason I appreciate the Atlanta Braves, or the Oakland A's. You get the sense that their staff, transported anywhere, would produce a great team. You just don't get that sense with George Steinbrenner and co. or Theo Epstein (Red Sox). For that reason, I say go Patriots: show us some good football.
(II) 10:50
Looks like its going to be a good game. And I lasted an hour. Not much to say about the game, but I took a break to make myself a latte and exploded espresso grounds everywhere. Don't know how that happened. I also figured out the greek numeral system.
(II) 9:50
Eagles finally score! They've had some pretty passing plays.
I just explained the Donkey-Clysdale Bud ads to Kelly. I'm embarassed that I remembered the sequence from last year. Interesting how much the Ad companies bank on EVERYONE watching the super bowl ... EVERY year.
(II) 0:43
Great drive by the Pats to score. Two really pretty passes by Brady at the end. McNabb, like Daunte Culpepper or Michael Vick, is a good quarterback, but a great athlete. Brady is just a great quarterback. Somehow the non-running quarterbacks always seem to come out on top. Here comes Sir Paul ...
Halftime Report
Why do they give the talking heads microphones if they are going to spend their 42 seconds screaming towards the camera saying I don't know what.
Beep beep mmm beep beep yeah.
hmmm ... that was a strange song. At least it didn't inspire any bare breasts. Sorry, cheap shot.
I think my favorite thing about Get Back Jojo is the honky tonk piano.
And ala Jon Koerner Hey Jude is my favorite Beatles song, so I have to say I was pleased. Though having the people make "Na Na" with their little colored squares was definitely the least creative idea possible. I enjoyed it. I think that is the first Super Bowl halftime that I have actually sat back and enjoyed. Libertas!!
I'm going to take a break and come back sometime in the fourth quarter.
End of Game
Well, I got distracted with the daughter. That was a great game. Great quarterbacks, great coaching, I enjoyed myself. Go American pastimes.
Anthem
Fitting. Whoever thinks up these ceremonies did well on this. America is at once the most criticized nation on earth, and the most openly self-critical. Whatever we all think of the war in Iraq, we are able to enjoy our most physically gifted citizens playing games into retirement because of the sacrifice of so many -- present and past. We rage against the machine, and yet it is the 'machine' that lets us have the luxury of raging against it while gladly taking social security checks and food stamps. We must not forget these things amidst our healthy doses of criticism. I've never heard the national anthem sung by a full choir before. I like it a lot more than a solo.
Coin Toss
I have never heard a ref explain a coin toss at a major game without stuttering/stumbling through the first several sentences. They always seem like they forget what they are saying because they are listening to themselves on the loudspeaker.
(I) 14:30
The Eagles should get back the fumble. Donovan McNabb is a good quarterback and fun to watch. However, I will be cheering for the Pats. As I tried to explain to some friends on friday, I like sports dynasties when they are built by a lot of hard work combined with talent and determination. For this reason I appreciate the Atlanta Braves, or the Oakland A's. You get the sense that their staff, transported anywhere, would produce a great team. You just don't get that sense with George Steinbrenner and co. or Theo Epstein (Red Sox). For that reason, I say go Patriots: show us some good football.
(II) 10:50
Looks like its going to be a good game. And I lasted an hour. Not much to say about the game, but I took a break to make myself a latte and exploded espresso grounds everywhere. Don't know how that happened. I also figured out the greek numeral system.
(II) 9:50
Eagles finally score! They've had some pretty passing plays.
I just explained the Donkey-Clysdale Bud ads to Kelly. I'm embarassed that I remembered the sequence from last year. Interesting how much the Ad companies bank on EVERYONE watching the super bowl ... EVERY year.
(II) 0:43
Great drive by the Pats to score. Two really pretty passes by Brady at the end. McNabb, like Daunte Culpepper or Michael Vick, is a good quarterback, but a great athlete. Brady is just a great quarterback. Somehow the non-running quarterbacks always seem to come out on top. Here comes Sir Paul ...
Halftime Report
Why do they give the talking heads microphones if they are going to spend their 42 seconds screaming towards the camera saying I don't know what.
Beep beep mmm beep beep yeah.
hmmm ... that was a strange song. At least it didn't inspire any bare breasts. Sorry, cheap shot.
I think my favorite thing about Get Back Jojo is the honky tonk piano.
And ala Jon Koerner Hey Jude is my favorite Beatles song, so I have to say I was pleased. Though having the people make "Na Na" with their little colored squares was definitely the least creative idea possible. I enjoyed it. I think that is the first Super Bowl halftime that I have actually sat back and enjoyed. Libertas!!
I'm going to take a break and come back sometime in the fourth quarter.
End of Game
Well, I got distracted with the daughter. That was a great game. Great quarterbacks, great coaching, I enjoyed myself. Go American pastimes.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Cause to Celebrate
I almost always enjoy what Charles Krauthammer has to say. Horray for Iraq. Imperfect? Clearly. But good.
They aren't dancing to this kind of music, but I will (inside at least).
They aren't dancing to this kind of music, but I will (inside at least).
Friday, February 04, 2005
Advice for American Men
Learn restraint, learn to fight, remember that you will die, and meditate devoutly on the fact that death is preferable to dishonor. (Brad Miner)
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Music and the Soul
Posting has been light because the Bourgeois Wife is out with pneumonia. That means I've been running her back and forth to the doctor's office and generally staying at home. Luckily, my life as a graduate student is fairly flexible.
Which leads me to Bach. Thorgerson mentioned his suites for solo celloa while back, and I wholeheartedly agree. I have the recording by Wispelway, and it is magnificent. I was worried about my wife yesterday, and the first note of the first suite dispelled that worry. I have no idea what the connection is between music and the soul, but I know there is one. I don't think any amount of spoken words could have had the effect that Bach did.
I once saw a production of Les Miserables, and I swear at one point, for a few seconds, I could see -- literally see -- the music coming out of the singers. It's the closest thing to a mystical experience I've had, and what's even stranger (or perhaps not) is that the singers were not professional singers but high school students singing magnificently, from their souls I believe. In saying this I am not suggesting that it was because of some imperfection in their singing that made the music visible to me; on the contrary these were very fine singers, some of the best I've ever heard. I think the innocence of their souls had something to do with it. Thinking of it now brings tears to my eyes.
Back to Plato. I'm dragging my business ethics students through book 1 of the Republic.
Which leads me to Bach. Thorgerson mentioned his suites for solo celloa while back, and I wholeheartedly agree. I have the recording by Wispelway, and it is magnificent. I was worried about my wife yesterday, and the first note of the first suite dispelled that worry. I have no idea what the connection is between music and the soul, but I know there is one. I don't think any amount of spoken words could have had the effect that Bach did.
I once saw a production of Les Miserables, and I swear at one point, for a few seconds, I could see -- literally see -- the music coming out of the singers. It's the closest thing to a mystical experience I've had, and what's even stranger (or perhaps not) is that the singers were not professional singers but high school students singing magnificently, from their souls I believe. In saying this I am not suggesting that it was because of some imperfection in their singing that made the music visible to me; on the contrary these were very fine singers, some of the best I've ever heard. I think the innocence of their souls had something to do with it. Thinking of it now brings tears to my eyes.
Back to Plato. I'm dragging my business ethics students through book 1 of the Republic.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Dobson in His Own Words
Remember all that hoo-ha about how Dr. Dobson hates SpongeBob SquarePants? Dobson has written a letter explaining what he said and what his position is. Of course, it's a lot more nuanced than what the MSM presented, and a lot more sensible.
Now maybe you don't agree with Dobson's views on marriage, family, and sexuality, but I think you should at least be eager to set the record straight on what he did and did not say.
Now maybe you don't agree with Dobson's views on marriage, family, and sexuality, but I think you should at least be eager to set the record straight on what he did and did not say.
Friday, January 28, 2005
The Incomparable
I usually have something akin to a violent mental allergic reaction when someone says, "so, why does God allow good people to suffer?" A. The equivalent of mental muccus stuffs my synapses and all thought is over; B. My mind starts thinking through the experiences that have left me wondering this same thing, not remembering what my conclusion was each time, but ... can I give you a hug? (yeah, not really); C. Who are you? which was my reaction this evening.
My response was, 'I don't know' and that is because it seems to me the question does not probe the mystery quite nearly hard enough.
The first lesson I learned in thinking about this issue was from the book of Job and a wise professor. It is a hard question, but the question should only be asked (and really can only be asked) from within the Christian context. In other words, we are talking about the Christian God and his revelation of Himself and not an abstract Nice Divinity, which is really the context most everyone is asking this question from. ie., since God=Santa why isn't saying sorry to Jimmy and helping Mom clean my toys up on December 23rd enough to merit presents all year long?
This train of thought led me to the conclusion that much before "why" is asked (and I really think it is just inane and useless to ask "Why God" questions), "whom" must be dealt with. Who created the world that allows suffering? The Christian God. Who is this God? He is the Word. The Word who spoke the world into being. The God who called creation good (note: not nice or fair). The God who knew the suffering to come: His own and that of His children. The God who knew His own death to come. The God who sent Himself, the God who offered Himself to flesh, devil and death upon the cross. Here He Is.
Christ, I can't believe you would let this happen to me.
What would you have me do?
I'm so angry I could kill You.
You already have.
Why did God allow suffering? I have no idea. But surely He has paid the price.
Why did God allow suffering? I don't know, but Jesus.
There really is no proper answer to the question. At least, not the sort of answer that will fit on a flash card or a Bible tract; maybe more the sort of answer that fits on a painted piece of board with gold leaf to be kissed before it is pondered.
Tonight I answered my friend saying, "I don't know the answer, but if anyone had the right to ask that question it was Jesus Christ." And didn't He? Didn't he ask it with blood seeping from the very pores of his skin, in the dead of night, forgotten by his friends? And what was God's answer? An angel, and that only in Luke. Not the myraids of angels that Elisha revealed to his servant. No, God sent an angel to 'strengthen' him. An Angel to strengthen the Son for the task. Divine support, and perhaps we might say relief, but no relinquishing of the task, no lightening of the burden. The Christian God did not deal in half measures, nor did He deal in almighty omniscience, wiping away cosmological suffering by tipping the heavenly scales of abstract justice. No, he dealt in flesh and bone, the nature of man, the skin and hair and blood. Now we can ask 'why'. Why this? Why this pain?
I cannot understand the Father who would send his Son. I cannot understand the Son who would submit to his creation. I cannot understand the God who would willingly create a world that would die, and in dying kill Him.
But the God I serve did these things, and it is only with such a God that I can accept suffering in the world. Only before such a God will I bow. For before this Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God I can do nothing but worship. And for me that is the answer.
My response was, 'I don't know' and that is because it seems to me the question does not probe the mystery quite nearly hard enough.
The first lesson I learned in thinking about this issue was from the book of Job and a wise professor. It is a hard question, but the question should only be asked (and really can only be asked) from within the Christian context. In other words, we are talking about the Christian God and his revelation of Himself and not an abstract Nice Divinity, which is really the context most everyone is asking this question from. ie., since God=Santa why isn't saying sorry to Jimmy and helping Mom clean my toys up on December 23rd enough to merit presents all year long?
This train of thought led me to the conclusion that much before "why" is asked (and I really think it is just inane and useless to ask "Why God" questions), "whom" must be dealt with. Who created the world that allows suffering? The Christian God. Who is this God? He is the Word. The Word who spoke the world into being. The God who called creation good (note: not nice or fair). The God who knew the suffering to come: His own and that of His children. The God who knew His own death to come. The God who sent Himself, the God who offered Himself to flesh, devil and death upon the cross. Here He Is.
Christ, I can't believe you would let this happen to me.
What would you have me do?
I'm so angry I could kill You.
You already have.
Why did God allow suffering? I have no idea. But surely He has paid the price.
Why did God allow suffering? I don't know, but Jesus.
There really is no proper answer to the question. At least, not the sort of answer that will fit on a flash card or a Bible tract; maybe more the sort of answer that fits on a painted piece of board with gold leaf to be kissed before it is pondered.
Tonight I answered my friend saying, "I don't know the answer, but if anyone had the right to ask that question it was Jesus Christ." And didn't He? Didn't he ask it with blood seeping from the very pores of his skin, in the dead of night, forgotten by his friends? And what was God's answer? An angel, and that only in Luke. Not the myraids of angels that Elisha revealed to his servant. No, God sent an angel to 'strengthen' him. An Angel to strengthen the Son for the task. Divine support, and perhaps we might say relief, but no relinquishing of the task, no lightening of the burden. The Christian God did not deal in half measures, nor did He deal in almighty omniscience, wiping away cosmological suffering by tipping the heavenly scales of abstract justice. No, he dealt in flesh and bone, the nature of man, the skin and hair and blood. Now we can ask 'why'. Why this? Why this pain?
I cannot understand the Father who would send his Son. I cannot understand the Son who would submit to his creation. I cannot understand the God who would willingly create a world that would die, and in dying kill Him.
But the God I serve did these things, and it is only with such a God that I can accept suffering in the world. Only before such a God will I bow. For before this Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God I can do nothing but worship. And for me that is the answer.
Shame
I am working on a paper on shame and sincerity in Plato's Gorgias. Thinking about what shame is reminded me of a quotation from C. S. Lewis's Great Divorce (ch. 8). For those who haven't read it, the setting of the story is a valley on the threshold of heaven where spirits from heaven attempt to persuade souls arriving from purgatory to leave behind their sins; there is no room at all for their sins in heaven. This quotation is from one heavenly spirit trying to persuade a soul from purgatory, who is ashamed to be seen in her ghostly condition, to step into "infinite happiness." The spirit replies:
An hour hence and you will not care. A day hence and you will laugh at it. Don’'t you remember on earth -- there were things too hot to touch with your finger but you could drink them all right? Shame is like that. If you will accept it -- if you will drink the cup to the bottom -- you will find it very nourishing: but try to do anything else with it and it scalds.
An hour hence and you will not care. A day hence and you will laugh at it. Don’'t you remember on earth -- there were things too hot to touch with your finger but you could drink them all right? Shame is like that. If you will accept it -- if you will drink the cup to the bottom -- you will find it very nourishing: but try to do anything else with it and it scalds.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Republic 329c4-5
Even then it seemed to me that he had spoken well, and now it does not seem any worse.
[This should have gone with yesterday's batch.
Cephalus is still speaking here, giving his views on old age in response to Socrates's question about what old age is like. "He" refers to the poet, Sophocles.
I take it that "even then" (kai tote) implies that C. thought Sophocles was right even when he, C., was younger.
The last half of the sentence is elliptical, and I've added "it does . . . seem any" to fill out the meaning.]
[This should have gone with yesterday's batch.
Cephalus is still speaking here, giving his views on old age in response to Socrates's question about what old age is like. "He" refers to the poet, Sophocles.
I take it that "even then" (kai tote) implies that C. thought Sophocles was right even when he, C., was younger.
The last half of the sentence is elliptical, and I've added "it does . . . seem any" to fill out the meaning.]
Vox Blogoli 2.1: Rauch on Violence from the Right
Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for organizing this symposium. Here is my contribution to the Vox Blogoli 2.1, my thoughts on Rauch’s comments, which I’ll quote, then comment on. My comments are critical, but I think Rauch has done well to continue this discussion.
“On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.” (Jonathan Rauch, The Atlantic, Jan/Feb 2005)
Put aside the assumption that religious conservatives wouldn’t be caught dead (or allowed) to write antiabortion planks into the Democratic platform. Also put aside the assumption that the Vietnam War activists responsible for street warfare had either a right or a privilege to the resources of a party establishment.
Moving on to what I see as the heart of Rauch’s view, first, one notes the implicit characterization of religious conservatives as “insurgents” [shades of MSM coverage of Iraq, anyone?] and “provocateurs.” If we don’t let the religious conservatives into the political system, then they’ll become violent. (This line of thought goes back at least to Hobbes. More on that later.)
Rauch attempts to make a parallel between religious conservatives and the left in order to mask his characterization of religious conservatives as violent: If we don’t allow “activists” from “the left” into the political process, then they’ll become violent, too. Rauch essentially soothes the religious conservatives by implying that they’re not the only ones prone to violence if shunned. But it doesn’t seem that his examples do that.
To see why, consider what the average reader of The Atlantic thinks about this paragraph. It doesn’t seem to be a great stretch of imagination to think that they consider civil rights (obviously) and Vietnam (slightly less obviously) to be just causes of protest, whereas antiabortion laws are to them indefensible in principle. That is, the effect of Rauch’s characterization and examples is to make support for the violent left more feasible to his readers than support for the violent right.
But why not just talk about violent protests simpliciter? Why the need to identify violent protests as the expression of either religious conservatives or the left? I think Rauch, and others, feel the need to do so because -- here’s my second main point -- they judge political choices on one principle: Do they promote social peace? Or, negatively, do they minimize social violence? Given this principle, it’s prudent to find out who or what is responsible for violence in society and either tame them or put a boot in their face. So, if the religious conservatives are responsible for most of the violence, let’s tame them or, well, we’d rather not say it.
Rauch seems to be occupied with considerations of violence. Suppose you think antiabortion laws are unjust. Under what rubric is it better to conclude that it’s better to have people working to write them into law as insiders instead of working to undermine abortion as outsiders? The only one I can think of is one in which the paramount fear is a fear of violence, which in turn reduces to a fear of violent death. Is there a Hobbes scholar in the house? Seriously; it’s a real question, and I don’t think it’s coincidence that Rauch’s article opens with the words “Have fear, Americans.” (A joke, he says, with “a kernel of truth.”) The attitude of those who govern from the left and the attitude of the cultural image-shapers from the left seems to be motivated by the fear of violence. An obvious problem -- and not necessarily the toughest -- with this is what Rauch would have us do with a political decision that promotes social peace but is also unjust. A Hobbesian way would be to define the just as that which promotes social peace. If we want to know whether Rauch’s ideas are taking hold in the political realm, look for this redefinition in the future.
To get to the heart of the left’s understanding of the Christian culture in America in 2005, I think one needs to ask representatives of the left whether they think all religions are essentially the same. We can even focus the question: are all major religions essentially the same, where “major” means religions such as Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. (This is not an exclusive list, and of course there will be borderline cases. But let’s not pretend that Wicca is in the same league as Christianity.) Two answers present themselves: yes, no. If yes, then we’re back to Hobbes’s treatment of religion. Treat it nicely, but if it gets out of hand, use the boot. Here’s something that’s explicit in Hobbes, but hidden in Rauch’s claim: If we let the religious conservatives into the political process, they must check the religious part at the door to the senate chamber (or wherever). The reason is that religion is the result, really, of superstition. If it were something rational (or at least something not irrational), then the concerns of the left wouldn’t be so large. Rational people can have reasonable political dialogue, but what do you do with superstition? Well, if there are a lot of superstitious people, you try to placate them and minimize the violence.
(A heuristic question for persons of the left to consider: What are the salient differences, if any, between the social philosophy/theology of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the social philosophy/theology of evangelicals in America in 2005?)
Of course, if you answer no to the question, then you’re on a different path, one most people on the left don’t like to consider. You’ve got to make some value judgments about different religions. So it’s not likely that many persons of the left are going to take this position, which leaves us with the first: religion is superstition. This, I think, is what Rauch's position boils down to.
In closing, Rauch seems to be throwing aside a crucial (and sensible) political maxim: govern from the center, not the fringe. But if you govern from the center you will need to “lock out” the fringe. (In the old days -- what am I, 28? -- this was what the police did if they needed to.) If the primary motivation is fear of violence, then governing from the fringe will look appealing because it’s not likely that the center will become violent, or so goes the thinking motivated by fear of violence. But if the primary motivation of policy makers is not fear of violence, then a number of reasons for governing from the center present themselves. Discussing these reasons, however, will have to wait for another post.
UPDATE: I wrote this last night and then read Rauch's comments to Hewitt that are on Hewitt's blog. Much of my first main point seems to be obviated by Rauch's comments. I want to go read the whole article, which is now posted on Hewitt's site, but that will take some time today. Perhaps I'll have a rewrite tonight.
[If you came from Hugh’s symposium, please check out the rest of the blog that I run with Thorgerson, who seems to be MIA from the blog recently. (Could it be the German class at 8:00 M-F?) Anyway, our blog consists mostly of my serial translations of Plato’s Republic, but there’s a post on the Georgia evolution-is-a-theory-not-a-fact Sticker from a while back, among other things.]
“On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.” (Jonathan Rauch, The Atlantic, Jan/Feb 2005)
Put aside the assumption that religious conservatives wouldn’t be caught dead (or allowed) to write antiabortion planks into the Democratic platform. Also put aside the assumption that the Vietnam War activists responsible for street warfare had either a right or a privilege to the resources of a party establishment.
Moving on to what I see as the heart of Rauch’s view, first, one notes the implicit characterization of religious conservatives as “insurgents” [shades of MSM coverage of Iraq, anyone?] and “provocateurs.” If we don’t let the religious conservatives into the political system, then they’ll become violent. (This line of thought goes back at least to Hobbes. More on that later.)
Rauch attempts to make a parallel between religious conservatives and the left in order to mask his characterization of religious conservatives as violent: If we don’t allow “activists” from “the left” into the political process, then they’ll become violent, too. Rauch essentially soothes the religious conservatives by implying that they’re not the only ones prone to violence if shunned. But it doesn’t seem that his examples do that.
To see why, consider what the average reader of The Atlantic thinks about this paragraph. It doesn’t seem to be a great stretch of imagination to think that they consider civil rights (obviously) and Vietnam (slightly less obviously) to be just causes of protest, whereas antiabortion laws are to them indefensible in principle. That is, the effect of Rauch’s characterization and examples is to make support for the violent left more feasible to his readers than support for the violent right.
But why not just talk about violent protests simpliciter? Why the need to identify violent protests as the expression of either religious conservatives or the left? I think Rauch, and others, feel the need to do so because -- here’s my second main point -- they judge political choices on one principle: Do they promote social peace? Or, negatively, do they minimize social violence? Given this principle, it’s prudent to find out who or what is responsible for violence in society and either tame them or put a boot in their face. So, if the religious conservatives are responsible for most of the violence, let’s tame them or, well, we’d rather not say it.
Rauch seems to be occupied with considerations of violence. Suppose you think antiabortion laws are unjust. Under what rubric is it better to conclude that it’s better to have people working to write them into law as insiders instead of working to undermine abortion as outsiders? The only one I can think of is one in which the paramount fear is a fear of violence, which in turn reduces to a fear of violent death. Is there a Hobbes scholar in the house? Seriously; it’s a real question, and I don’t think it’s coincidence that Rauch’s article opens with the words “Have fear, Americans.” (A joke, he says, with “a kernel of truth.”) The attitude of those who govern from the left and the attitude of the cultural image-shapers from the left seems to be motivated by the fear of violence. An obvious problem -- and not necessarily the toughest -- with this is what Rauch would have us do with a political decision that promotes social peace but is also unjust. A Hobbesian way would be to define the just as that which promotes social peace. If we want to know whether Rauch’s ideas are taking hold in the political realm, look for this redefinition in the future.
To get to the heart of the left’s understanding of the Christian culture in America in 2005, I think one needs to ask representatives of the left whether they think all religions are essentially the same. We can even focus the question: are all major religions essentially the same, where “major” means religions such as Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. (This is not an exclusive list, and of course there will be borderline cases. But let’s not pretend that Wicca is in the same league as Christianity.) Two answers present themselves: yes, no. If yes, then we’re back to Hobbes’s treatment of religion. Treat it nicely, but if it gets out of hand, use the boot. Here’s something that’s explicit in Hobbes, but hidden in Rauch’s claim: If we let the religious conservatives into the political process, they must check the religious part at the door to the senate chamber (or wherever). The reason is that religion is the result, really, of superstition. If it were something rational (or at least something not irrational), then the concerns of the left wouldn’t be so large. Rational people can have reasonable political dialogue, but what do you do with superstition? Well, if there are a lot of superstitious people, you try to placate them and minimize the violence.
(A heuristic question for persons of the left to consider: What are the salient differences, if any, between the social philosophy/theology of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the social philosophy/theology of evangelicals in America in 2005?)
Of course, if you answer no to the question, then you’re on a different path, one most people on the left don’t like to consider. You’ve got to make some value judgments about different religions. So it’s not likely that many persons of the left are going to take this position, which leaves us with the first: religion is superstition. This, I think, is what Rauch's position boils down to.
In closing, Rauch seems to be throwing aside a crucial (and sensible) political maxim: govern from the center, not the fringe. But if you govern from the center you will need to “lock out” the fringe. (In the old days -- what am I, 28? -- this was what the police did if they needed to.) If the primary motivation is fear of violence, then governing from the fringe will look appealing because it’s not likely that the center will become violent, or so goes the thinking motivated by fear of violence. But if the primary motivation of policy makers is not fear of violence, then a number of reasons for governing from the center present themselves. Discussing these reasons, however, will have to wait for another post.
UPDATE: I wrote this last night and then read Rauch's comments to Hewitt that are on Hewitt's blog. Much of my first main point seems to be obviated by Rauch's comments. I want to go read the whole article, which is now posted on Hewitt's site, but that will take some time today. Perhaps I'll have a rewrite tonight.
[If you came from Hugh’s symposium, please check out the rest of the blog that I run with Thorgerson, who seems to be MIA from the blog recently. (Could it be the German class at 8:00 M-F?) Anyway, our blog consists mostly of my serial translations of Plato’s Republic, but there’s a post on the Georgia evolution-is-a-theory-not-a-fact Sticker from a while back, among other things.]
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
A Slight
The Oscar nominations were announced today. I haven't seen any of the films nominated for best picture, but I have seen the best picture of the year, The Incredibles. The Incredibles was nominated for best animated feature film, which I'm sure it will win. But it is in the wrong category. Why am I a bit upset about the Academy's slighting of The Incredibles? In short, because it is an excellent movie. It has a great story; excellent acting (in this case a combination of wonderful voicing and animation); believable, likeable, characters; substantial comment on the human condition; and high humor. Unlike Shrek 2, The Incredibles does not rely on fart jokes for laughs, and lest you be tempted to laugh at my claim that it has substantial comment on the human condition, recall the scene where Dash -- the wonderboy with superspeed -- mutters that in a society where everybody is "special," nobody is. Consider also the lessons learned by Mr. Incredible -- real, honest lessons about life. But unlike other movies with real, honest lessons about life, this one does not need to make us sympathize with unvirtuous characters (see, e.g., Matchstick Men).
I've not seen Brad Bird's other movie, Iron Giant, but I think I'll try to see it soon. I've heard it's good.
I've not seen Brad Bird's other movie, Iron Giant, but I think I'll try to see it soon. I've heard it's good.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Republic 329b4-c4
For if this were the cause, I too would have suffered the same things on account of old age, and so would all the others who have come to this age. But now presently I have met with others for whom it is not so, and in particular Sophocles; once I was near the poet when he was asked by someone: 'Sophocles, how do you hold up in sex? Are you still able to be with a woman?' 'Hush man!' he said. 'Gladly did I flee from this, just as if I were escaping from some raging and wild master.'
[The word I've translated "hush" is quite interesting. It means to speak good words, or not to blaspheme. The hymn "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" comes to mind.
I'll forgo another treatise on grammar (there isn't much of note in this passage) and moralize instead. Compare what Cephalus is saying with the view of sex expounded by the cultural elite in America today. Could one ever imagine Hugh Hefner saying these things? Instead of gladly fleeing from the wild and raging master, Hugh feeds it Viagra. What a dolt.]
[The word I've translated "hush" is quite interesting. It means to speak good words, or not to blaspheme. The hymn "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" comes to mind.
I'll forgo another treatise on grammar (there isn't much of note in this passage) and moralize instead. Compare what Cephalus is saying with the view of sex expounded by the cultural elite in America today. Could one ever imagine Hugh Hefner saying these things? Instead of gladly fleeing from the wild and raging master, Hugh feeds it Viagra. What a dolt.]
Republic 329b3-4 (revised)
But these men, Socrates, seem to me to not blame the root cause.
[Thanks to a helpful e-mail from Michael Gilleland, I see now that the previous long post on this sentence was unnecessary. The chief mistake in my thinking was to overlook the fact that dokousin is third-person plural, not singular. Noticing that would have made the sentence different from the beginning. Once that's corrected, the rest of the sentence, except for the placement of not, falls easily into place. The trouble with not is that it modifies "the root cause" in Greek; I looked at what I think are all the relevant passages in Smyth, but I couldn't find any examples where a phrase intervenes between a negative particle and the word it modifies. This means that the end of the sentence reads literally ". . . seem to me to blame not the root cause," but that sounds awkward even to my ears.]
[Thanks to a helpful e-mail from Michael Gilleland, I see now that the previous long post on this sentence was unnecessary. The chief mistake in my thinking was to overlook the fact that dokousin is third-person plural, not singular. Noticing that would have made the sentence different from the beginning. Once that's corrected, the rest of the sentence, except for the placement of not, falls easily into place. The trouble with not is that it modifies "the root cause" in Greek; I looked at what I think are all the relevant passages in Smyth, but I couldn't find any examples where a phrase intervenes between a negative particle and the word it modifies. This means that the end of the sentence reads literally ". . . seem to me to blame not the root cause," but that sounds awkward even to my ears.]
Friday, January 21, 2005
Republic 329b3-4
But it seems to me, Socrates, that these things are not the things to blame.
[Since this sentence is short, I had planned to translate it with the next one. But even the short sentences don't translate easily. Despite all the hoops of syntax that follow below, the meaning of the sentence seems to be pretty clear. Cephalus thinks that those who complain about old age are not singling out what is actually blameworthy.
Literally, the sentence reads as follows: "But it seems to me, Socrates, these not the blame to blame." The choices the translator must make are made clear by this literal rendition. One has to decide what the antecedent of "these" is, and one also has to decide how to make "not the blame to blame" intelligible. In particular, the ambiguity is the result of (1) the word houtoi, which I've translated "these things," and (2) the use of the infinitive aitiasthai, "to blame."
Let's look at the second problem first because I think it will make the first decision clearer. We have in the second part of the sentence a subordinate clause in which the infinitive occurs. Normally, one might expect the subject of the subordinate clause to be in the accusative (see Smyth, sec. 1975). In this sentence, the subject looks to be outoi, which is nominative. I think this -- with the lack of a relative pronoun -- indicates that the infinitive is supposed to remain in the infinitive mood. Thus, we need to include "to blame" somewhere in the translation.
(It could be that the subject of the infinitive is aition, "the blameworthy," which is in the accusative case. Then the clause might read "these men do not blame the blameworthy." The problem with this is that the negative particle precedes the noun aition not the infinitive (verb) aitiasthai. For this reason, I don't think that translation is as good as the one I've chosen.)
This leads us back to the first issue of finding the antecedent of outoi. We have two choices. We could translate it as "these men" or "these things." If we translate it "these men," then the sentence needs to read ". . . these men not the blame to blame," which doesn't make sense, and it isn't clear what we could add that would make it sensible. However, most translators choose to go this route, which counts for something against my decision. For example, Reeve says, "I don't think they blame the real cause."
But if we translate "these things," the we get ". . . these things not the blame to blame," and it seems acceptable (which is a judgment call) to add "are" in order to get "these things are not the blame to blame." Yet another judgment call is taking "the blame" substantivally to mean "the blamed (or blameworthy) things," and the result is that, in passable English, we get "these things are not the things to blame."
Two last notes. First, it could be the case that since Plato is writing dialogue for the character Cephalus, he's mimicking how a person might actually speak, in which case the spoken sentences may not have the perfect syntax we'd expect from prose. We often say things that would be difficult to decipher if written down but make good sense when spoken. Context is important in these cases.
Second, the usually more-literal-than-thou Bloom goes for the idiomatic in this sentence; his translation is "these men do not put their fingers on the cause."]
[Since this sentence is short, I had planned to translate it with the next one. But even the short sentences don't translate easily. Despite all the hoops of syntax that follow below, the meaning of the sentence seems to be pretty clear. Cephalus thinks that those who complain about old age are not singling out what is actually blameworthy.
Literally, the sentence reads as follows: "But it seems to me, Socrates, these not the blame to blame." The choices the translator must make are made clear by this literal rendition. One has to decide what the antecedent of "these" is, and one also has to decide how to make "not the blame to blame" intelligible. In particular, the ambiguity is the result of (1) the word houtoi, which I've translated "these things," and (2) the use of the infinitive aitiasthai, "to blame."
Let's look at the second problem first because I think it will make the first decision clearer. We have in the second part of the sentence a subordinate clause in which the infinitive occurs. Normally, one might expect the subject of the subordinate clause to be in the accusative (see Smyth, sec. 1975). In this sentence, the subject looks to be outoi, which is nominative. I think this -- with the lack of a relative pronoun -- indicates that the infinitive is supposed to remain in the infinitive mood. Thus, we need to include "to blame" somewhere in the translation.
(It could be that the subject of the infinitive is aition, "the blameworthy," which is in the accusative case. Then the clause might read "these men do not blame the blameworthy." The problem with this is that the negative particle precedes the noun aition not the infinitive (verb) aitiasthai. For this reason, I don't think that translation is as good as the one I've chosen.)
This leads us back to the first issue of finding the antecedent of outoi. We have two choices. We could translate it as "these men" or "these things." If we translate it "these men," then the sentence needs to read ". . . these men not the blame to blame," which doesn't make sense, and it isn't clear what we could add that would make it sensible. However, most translators choose to go this route, which counts for something against my decision. For example, Reeve says, "I don't think they blame the real cause."
But if we translate "these things," the we get ". . . these things not the blame to blame," and it seems acceptable (which is a judgment call) to add "are" in order to get "these things are not the blame to blame." Yet another judgment call is taking "the blame" substantivally to mean "the blamed (or blameworthy) things," and the result is that, in passable English, we get "these things are not the things to blame."
Two last notes. First, it could be the case that since Plato is writing dialogue for the character Cephalus, he's mimicking how a person might actually speak, in which case the spoken sentences may not have the perfect syntax we'd expect from prose. We often say things that would be difficult to decipher if written down but make good sense when spoken. Context is important in these cases.
Second, the usually more-literal-than-thou Bloom goes for the idiomatic in this sentence; his translation is "these men do not put their fingers on the cause."]
A Philosophical Question
"Can God microwave a burrito that is too hot for God to eat?" (Homer Simpson)
Discuss.
Discuss.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
New Issue of CRB
The latest issue of the Claremont Review of Books is out. Education wonks (and others) will be interested in the essay by Harvey C. Mansfield on liberal education. One of the best lines from his essay is near the end: "With better writing goes, like, better speaking."
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Republic 329b1-3
Some also bewail the abuse of old people from relatives, and in this wise they repeat over and over all the evils for which they blame old age.
[This is Cephalus still speaking.
The semantics of this sentence is unclear, and there are difficulties in both halves, though those of the second half are greater.
In the first half, the trouble is that what I've translated "relatives" admits of at least four different conjugations or declensions. One can narrow it down to a participle in this context, and then it has to function substantivally. Literally it would be "the dwelling ones," i.e., the ones who dwell in the same house, i.e., their relatives.
The difficulties with the second half have mostly to do with translating epi toutoi de [toutoi ends in an omega with an iota subscript; de has a long a sound, as in day, as opposed to the other Gr. particle de]. I've translated this phrase as "in this wise." Epi would usually be translated as "on," "upon," "supported by," or something similar, but that doesn't make much sense here; so one has to go for a secondary meaning, and they are numerous. I chose my translation of epi (cf. LSJ, sv, B.I.1.i) by considering the effect of de, which is used to give greater exactness to the word it influences. Except for the archaic use of "wise," I think the translation is passable.
Bloom has a very clever way of translating the second half. His translation reads, "and in this key they sing a refrain about all the evils old age has caused them." It's clever because it plays on the semantic range of humneo, which means either to repeat over and over or to sing (this is the word from which we get the English hymn). He is able to use the English phrase "in this key" to capture the force of de with epi and tie it into the meaning of humneo. My only problem with this is that I don't think Cephalus is being that clever.]
[This is Cephalus still speaking.
The semantics of this sentence is unclear, and there are difficulties in both halves, though those of the second half are greater.
In the first half, the trouble is that what I've translated "relatives" admits of at least four different conjugations or declensions. One can narrow it down to a participle in this context, and then it has to function substantivally. Literally it would be "the dwelling ones," i.e., the ones who dwell in the same house, i.e., their relatives.
The difficulties with the second half have mostly to do with translating epi toutoi de [toutoi ends in an omega with an iota subscript; de has a long a sound, as in day, as opposed to the other Gr. particle de]. I've translated this phrase as "in this wise." Epi would usually be translated as "on," "upon," "supported by," or something similar, but that doesn't make much sense here; so one has to go for a secondary meaning, and they are numerous. I chose my translation of epi (cf. LSJ, sv, B.I.1.i) by considering the effect of de, which is used to give greater exactness to the word it influences. Except for the archaic use of "wise," I think the translation is passable.
Bloom has a very clever way of translating the second half. His translation reads, "and in this key they sing a refrain about all the evils old age has caused them." It's clever because it plays on the semantic range of humneo, which means either to repeat over and over or to sing (this is the word from which we get the English hymn). He is able to use the English phrase "in this key" to capture the force of de with epi and tie it into the meaning of humneo. My only problem with this is that I don't think Cephalus is being that clever.]
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Republic 329a4-8
and, in truth, whenever we come together, most of us lament, longing for and recalling to memory the pleasures of youth -- sexual pleasures, drink, feasting, and all that goes with things of this sort -- and are discontented as though having been robbed of something great, they were then living well but now they are not even living.
[Part of the meaning of this passage turns on Thorgerson's least favorite particle, hos. I've translated it as "as though": ". . . and are discontented as though having been robbed . . ." This implies that they haven't really been robbed of anything; it's only as if they had been robbed. The particle could also have a more direct, causal meaning, something like "since" or "that": ". . . and are discontented since having been robbed . . ." My Greek isn't good enough to know if there's a contextual hint about the meaning of hos. So I copied what most of the translations I have did.
Another point of ambiguity is the last phrase: "they were then living well but now they are not even living." In the Greek, it's only "then (on the one hand) living well, now (on the other hand) not even living." One has to supply a verb, but in what person shall the verb be? First or third? C. is relating the views of "most" (pleistoi), and later he gives his own opinion; so I think one should put the verb in the third person even though the sentence begins with the first-person plural "us."
UPDATE: Thanks to Mike Gilleland for pointing out that I left out some words in this sentence. I've now included them.]
[Part of the meaning of this passage turns on Thorgerson's least favorite particle, hos. I've translated it as "as though": ". . . and are discontented as though having been robbed . . ." This implies that they haven't really been robbed of anything; it's only as if they had been robbed. The particle could also have a more direct, causal meaning, something like "since" or "that": ". . . and are discontented since having been robbed . . ." My Greek isn't good enough to know if there's a contextual hint about the meaning of hos. So I copied what most of the translations I have did.
Another point of ambiguity is the last phrase: "they were then living well but now they are not even living." In the Greek, it's only "then (on the one hand) living well, now (on the other hand) not even living." One has to supply a verb, but in what person shall the verb be? First or third? C. is relating the views of "most" (pleistoi), and later he gives his own opinion; so I think one should put the verb in the third person even though the sentence begins with the first-person plural "us."
UPDATE: Thanks to Mike Gilleland for pointing out that I left out some words in this sentence. I've now included them.]
Friday, January 14, 2005
Plato on Television and its Effect
"And the incapable craftsman we mustn't permit to practice his craft among us, so that our guardians won't be reared on images of vice, as it were on bad grass, every day cropping and grazing on a great deal little by little from many places, and unawares put together some one big bad thing in their soul." (Republic 401b, trans. Bloom)
Republic 329a2-4
For often we who are nearly the same age, having come together, preserve the old saying;
[The old saying C. refers to seems to be "like is attracted to like." Shorey actually adds it to his translation, saying, "some of us . . . come together and verify the old saw of like to like."]
[The old saying C. refers to seems to be "like is attracted to like." Shorey actually adds it to his translation, saying, "some of us . . . come together and verify the old saw of like to like."]
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Much ado about the Sticker
U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled today that the Cobb County School Board's decision to place the evolution-is-a-theory-not-a-fact Sticker on high school biology texts violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Why does the Sticker violate the Establishment Clause? It's not because the Sticker explicitly invoked religious belief. (The Sticker stated the following: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.") It's because it implicitly advances a religious belief.
Here's the test Cooper used to reach his decision (quotations from his decision are in blue; I've deleted references within Cooper's decision to other cases):
To determine whether the Sticker at issue violates the Establishment Clause, Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent direct the Court to apply the three-prong test articulated in Lemon v Kurtzman. Under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if (1) it does not have a secular purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. If the government-sponsored action or message fails to meet either of these three prongs, then the challenge under the Establishment Clause succeeds.
In other words, if the judge reasons that the "government-sponsored message" fails to have a secular purpose, it's out. If its principal effect advances or inhibits religion, it's out. If it excessively entangles the government with religion, it's out. What did Cooper find? According to him, the Sticker (as it's referred to in his decision; the capitalization makes it look like a Platonic entity: the Form of Sticker) passes the first test. It has a reasonable, secular purpose. He states:
after considering the additional arguments and evidence presented by the parties and evaluating the evidence in light of the applicable law, the Court remains convinced that the Sticker at issue serves at last two secular purposes. First, the Sticker fosters critical thinking by encouraging students to learn about evolution and to make their own assessment regarding its merit. Second, by presenting evolution in a manner that is not unnecessarily hostile, the Sticker reduces offense to students and parents whose beliefs may conflict with the teaching of evolution. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Sticker satisfies the first prong of the Lemon analysis.
The problem is with the second part. Cooper reasoned that the Sticker's "principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion." In this case, he found that it advances religion. Here's why.
There is no evidence in this case that the School Board included the statement in the Sticker that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" to promote or advance religion. Indeed, the testimony of the School Board members and the documents in the record all indicate that the School Board relied on counsel to draft language for the sticker that would pass constitutional muster. Thus, the presence of this language does not change the Court's opinion that the Sticker survives the purpose prong of the Lemon analysis.
Still, the informed, reasonable [person (?)] would perceive the School Board to be aligning itself with proponents of religious theories of origin. The case law is clear that a governmental action or message that coincides with the beliefs of certain religions does not, without more, invalidate the action or message. However, in light of the sequence of events that led to the Sticker's adoption, the Sticker communicates to those who endorse evolution that they are political outsiders, while the Sticker communicates to the Christian fundamentalists and creationists who pushed for a disclaimer that they are political insiders.
So, even though the school board had a secular purpose, the Sticker is unconstitutional because it endorses a religious viewpoint, that is, it is the result of a process in which a number of citizens, who are religious, convinced the school board that it was in the best interests of the citizens of Cobb County to put the Sticker on the textbooks.
But it isn't as if Cooper ruled that any government-sponsored message that is introduced by a large, vocal group of religious people is automatically unconstitutional. Another part of his reasoning was that it is well-known in the U.S. that the teaching of evolution has historically been opposed by "Christian fundamentalists and creationists" (his terms). Given this historical context, the reasonable person will see that the Sticker, since it draws attention to the disputed nature of the theory of evolution, sides with the "Christian fundamentalists and creationists." In Cooper's words:
the Sticker here disavows the endorsement of evolution, a scientific theory, and contains an implicit religious message advanced by Christian fundamentalists and creationists, which is discernible after one considers the historical context of the statement that evolution is a theory and not a fact The informed, reasonable observer is deemed aware of this historical context
I think this is bad for two reasons.
The first is that it seems that religious groups should be concerned that any similar longstanding issue involving them will be decided against them a priori. In other words, if you're a member of a religious group, and you want the courts to decide in your favor on a decision involving a history of religious vs. nonreligious opposition, you're screwed. Why? Because, according to Cooper, if the courts were to side with you, they would endorse your religious beliefs. This, I think, is a grave outcome.
The second problem I see is that Cooper, and the plaintiffs, fail to distinguish between religious motivation and religious people. The assumption seems to be that if one is religious, and if one is opposed to evolution, then one is opposed to it on religious grounds. That is, one's motivation for opposing evolution must be religious. Cooper seems to be taking his cue from one of the plaintiffs in the case.
Plaintiff Kathy Chapman's "alarm bells went off" when she saw the Sticker in her child's textbook, and she immediately felt that the Sticker "came from a religious source" because, in her opinion, religious people are the only people who ever challenge evolution.
Cooper's inference is that since only religious people object to evolution, it must be that they reject it on religious grounds. Well, the first part of that claim might be false (I'm sure there is at least one nonreligious person who is critical of the theory of evolution), but let's focus on the inference from the first to the second part. Is it true that a religious person must object to evolution on religious grounds? No. One could be religious and object to the theory of evolution on nonreligious grounds. Cooper seems to recognize this, but he doesn't give it much weight. He states:
While the School Board may have considered the request of its constituents and adopted the Sticker for sincere, secular purposes, an informed, reasonable observer would understand the School Board to be endorsing the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalists and creationists that evolution is a problematic theory lacking an adequate foundation. Of course, the amicus brief filed by certain biologists and Georgia scientists indicates that there are some scientists who have questions regarding certain aspects of evolutionary theory, and the informed, reasonable observer would be aware of this also. On the whole, however, the Sticker would appear to advance the religious viewpoint of the Christian fundamentalists and creationists who were vocal during the textbook adoption process regarding their belief that evolution is a theory, not a fact, which students should critically consider.
Despite the amicus brief of "some scientists" who question "certain aspects" of evolutionary theory, Cooper thinks that "on the whole," the Sticker advances a religious viewpoint. Now "certain aspects" is vague, but shouldn't Cooper have paid more attention to it? If it's true that there are possible nonreligious motivations for criticizing evolutionary theory, it seems also possible that the Sticker does not necessarily advance a religious view. But then the only reason Cooper "knows" that the Sticker is religiously motivated is because of the outspokenness of its proponents.
This seems to lead to an odd result in a democracy: if the "Christian fundamentalists and creationists" hadn't been so vocal during the textbook adoption process, the Sticker might have had a better chance of passing the Lemon test. Next time, fundamentalists, don't be so vocal about your opinions. You might have a better chance. But even if there is a next time, it isn't clear that being less vocal about their opinions will help the fundamentalists. Cooper's rule seems to be based on the fact that the people pushing for the government-sponsored message are themselves fundamentalists, and that seems to be enough for him, given the historical context of the debate. Cooper concludes:
However, considering all facts and circumstances related to the Sticker and its adoption, the Court is convinced that the Sticker's primary effect surpasses accommodation and endorses religion. Thus, even though the Sticker may not explicitly advance a particular religious viewpoint and explicitly encourage maintenance of that viewpoint as did the disclaimer in Freiler, the Constitution requires that the government "pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion." The Sticker in this case, considered in context, communicates to the reasonable observer that the School Board has violated this mandate.
It seems impossible for the government to "pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion," and the Sticker seems to be a case of that impossibility. The court's "neutrality" functions in this case as a guise for inhibiting the religious viewpoint.
UPDATE: The Scrivner's Error has more on the legal aspects of the case; he also disagrees with me about whether the outcome is good or bad.
Here's the test Cooper used to reach his decision (quotations from his decision are in blue; I've deleted references within Cooper's decision to other cases):
To determine whether the Sticker at issue violates the Establishment Clause, Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent direct the Court to apply the three-prong test articulated in Lemon v Kurtzman. Under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if (1) it does not have a secular purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. If the government-sponsored action or message fails to meet either of these three prongs, then the challenge under the Establishment Clause succeeds.
In other words, if the judge reasons that the "government-sponsored message" fails to have a secular purpose, it's out. If its principal effect advances or inhibits religion, it's out. If it excessively entangles the government with religion, it's out. What did Cooper find? According to him, the Sticker (as it's referred to in his decision; the capitalization makes it look like a Platonic entity: the Form of Sticker) passes the first test. It has a reasonable, secular purpose. He states:
after considering the additional arguments and evidence presented by the parties and evaluating the evidence in light of the applicable law, the Court remains convinced that the Sticker at issue serves at last two secular purposes. First, the Sticker fosters critical thinking by encouraging students to learn about evolution and to make their own assessment regarding its merit. Second, by presenting evolution in a manner that is not unnecessarily hostile, the Sticker reduces offense to students and parents whose beliefs may conflict with the teaching of evolution. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Sticker satisfies the first prong of the Lemon analysis.
The problem is with the second part. Cooper reasoned that the Sticker's "principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion." In this case, he found that it advances religion. Here's why.
There is no evidence in this case that the School Board included the statement in the Sticker that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" to promote or advance religion. Indeed, the testimony of the School Board members and the documents in the record all indicate that the School Board relied on counsel to draft language for the sticker that would pass constitutional muster. Thus, the presence of this language does not change the Court's opinion that the Sticker survives the purpose prong of the Lemon analysis.
Still, the informed, reasonable [person (?)] would perceive the School Board to be aligning itself with proponents of religious theories of origin. The case law is clear that a governmental action or message that coincides with the beliefs of certain religions does not, without more, invalidate the action or message. However, in light of the sequence of events that led to the Sticker's adoption, the Sticker communicates to those who endorse evolution that they are political outsiders, while the Sticker communicates to the Christian fundamentalists and creationists who pushed for a disclaimer that they are political insiders.
So, even though the school board had a secular purpose, the Sticker is unconstitutional because it endorses a religious viewpoint, that is, it is the result of a process in which a number of citizens, who are religious, convinced the school board that it was in the best interests of the citizens of Cobb County to put the Sticker on the textbooks.
But it isn't as if Cooper ruled that any government-sponsored message that is introduced by a large, vocal group of religious people is automatically unconstitutional. Another part of his reasoning was that it is well-known in the U.S. that the teaching of evolution has historically been opposed by "Christian fundamentalists and creationists" (his terms). Given this historical context, the reasonable person will see that the Sticker, since it draws attention to the disputed nature of the theory of evolution, sides with the "Christian fundamentalists and creationists." In Cooper's words:
the Sticker here disavows the endorsement of evolution, a scientific theory, and contains an implicit religious message advanced by Christian fundamentalists and creationists, which is discernible after one considers the historical context of the statement that evolution is a theory and not a fact The informed, reasonable observer is deemed aware of this historical context
I think this is bad for two reasons.
The first is that it seems that religious groups should be concerned that any similar longstanding issue involving them will be decided against them a priori. In other words, if you're a member of a religious group, and you want the courts to decide in your favor on a decision involving a history of religious vs. nonreligious opposition, you're screwed. Why? Because, according to Cooper, if the courts were to side with you, they would endorse your religious beliefs. This, I think, is a grave outcome.
The second problem I see is that Cooper, and the plaintiffs, fail to distinguish between religious motivation and religious people. The assumption seems to be that if one is religious, and if one is opposed to evolution, then one is opposed to it on religious grounds. That is, one's motivation for opposing evolution must be religious. Cooper seems to be taking his cue from one of the plaintiffs in the case.
Plaintiff Kathy Chapman's "alarm bells went off" when she saw the Sticker in her child's textbook, and she immediately felt that the Sticker "came from a religious source" because, in her opinion, religious people are the only people who ever challenge evolution.
Cooper's inference is that since only religious people object to evolution, it must be that they reject it on religious grounds. Well, the first part of that claim might be false (I'm sure there is at least one nonreligious person who is critical of the theory of evolution), but let's focus on the inference from the first to the second part. Is it true that a religious person must object to evolution on religious grounds? No. One could be religious and object to the theory of evolution on nonreligious grounds. Cooper seems to recognize this, but he doesn't give it much weight. He states:
While the School Board may have considered the request of its constituents and adopted the Sticker for sincere, secular purposes, an informed, reasonable observer would understand the School Board to be endorsing the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalists and creationists that evolution is a problematic theory lacking an adequate foundation. Of course, the amicus brief filed by certain biologists and Georgia scientists indicates that there are some scientists who have questions regarding certain aspects of evolutionary theory, and the informed, reasonable observer would be aware of this also. On the whole, however, the Sticker would appear to advance the religious viewpoint of the Christian fundamentalists and creationists who were vocal during the textbook adoption process regarding their belief that evolution is a theory, not a fact, which students should critically consider.
Despite the amicus brief of "some scientists" who question "certain aspects" of evolutionary theory, Cooper thinks that "on the whole," the Sticker advances a religious viewpoint. Now "certain aspects" is vague, but shouldn't Cooper have paid more attention to it? If it's true that there are possible nonreligious motivations for criticizing evolutionary theory, it seems also possible that the Sticker does not necessarily advance a religious view. But then the only reason Cooper "knows" that the Sticker is religiously motivated is because of the outspokenness of its proponents.
This seems to lead to an odd result in a democracy: if the "Christian fundamentalists and creationists" hadn't been so vocal during the textbook adoption process, the Sticker might have had a better chance of passing the Lemon test. Next time, fundamentalists, don't be so vocal about your opinions. You might have a better chance. But even if there is a next time, it isn't clear that being less vocal about their opinions will help the fundamentalists. Cooper's rule seems to be based on the fact that the people pushing for the government-sponsored message are themselves fundamentalists, and that seems to be enough for him, given the historical context of the debate. Cooper concludes:
However, considering all facts and circumstances related to the Sticker and its adoption, the Court is convinced that the Sticker's primary effect surpasses accommodation and endorses religion. Thus, even though the Sticker may not explicitly advance a particular religious viewpoint and explicitly encourage maintenance of that viewpoint as did the disclaimer in Freiler, the Constitution requires that the government "pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion." The Sticker in this case, considered in context, communicates to the reasonable observer that the School Board has violated this mandate.
It seems impossible for the government to "pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion," and the Sticker seems to be a case of that impossibility. The court's "neutrality" functions in this case as a guise for inhibiting the religious viewpoint.
UPDATE: The Scrivner's Error has more on the legal aspects of the case; he also disagrees with me about whether the outcome is good or bad.
On Blogging
Not that this has not been said many times already in the last couple of months, and Hugh Hewitt has a new book which I'm sure says much the same thing in more detail, but I almost always enjoy reading Peggy Noonan, who has a good and concise statement on the changing of the guard in the Media. I think it is worth saying many times because we are at a real change: if the fallout will continue, what will next be widely exposed is the "liberal domination" of higher education (which of course many have already been trying to point out for a long time). While I hope the pendulum does not swing to the fully opposite side, what I think is most important is the exposure of the fact that Leftist thought, I believe, has long been propped up by the information filter of MSM. What will happen when that prop is removed? What will happen when the best and the brightest students at "top Universities" no longer tolerate their professors pontificating on politics in Greek class among others (as has been my experience at both UCLA and Berkeley)? I believe that history will reveal the modern democrat as a flash in the pan -- an interesting political phenomenon propped up by contingent factors such as a monopoly on education and the transmission of news information. But I get entirely ahead of myself. Time will tell: I am simply enjoying watching this play out.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Republic 329a1-2
"By Zeus," he said, "I will tell you indeed, Socrates, how it appears to me."
[Reminder: This is Cephalus speaking; he's referring to old age.
The first two words of this sentence are ego and soi; it's as if C. is eager to tell S. his report about old age. The ego is usually unnecessary in Greek and usually indicates emphasis, as I think it does here.
Further, C. swears by Zeus, which is the first instance of that name in the dialogue. S.'s question seems to have really touched off something in C.
(I've reached a new Stephanus page!)]
[Reminder: This is Cephalus speaking; he's referring to old age.
The first two words of this sentence are ego and soi; it's as if C. is eager to tell S. his report about old age. The ego is usually unnecessary in Greek and usually indicates emphasis, as I think it does here.
Further, C. swears by Zeus, which is the first instance of that name in the dialogue. S.'s question seems to have really touched off something in C.
(I've reached a new Stephanus page!)]
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Post-Vacation Re-entry
I intended to come back from vacation with some really delightful posts, but I was hit by jetlag like I didn't think was possible for people under 45. I have come to the conclusion that jetlag is really parent lag. Jetlag is nothing unless you are a person who has to go to bed at 8:47pm and arise at 5:31 am on a daily basis. For normal folk, you just drink some coffee, spend time out doors until you can justifiably go to bed. Maybe you wake up early the next day but by the day after its nothing. As a parent, however, you have no choice but to get up with your child at 2:30 in the morning so that they can crawl around until 8 am. THAT gives you jetlag. Despite never having had a profession besides being a student (ie., expert sleep deprivation), I have never in my life known such physical exhaustion.
Anyway, it took five days, but we're all normal now, and yesterday my brain began to function again. Huzzah! In the meantime I watched more movies than I think I've watched in the last two years combined. None of them were incredible, though The Man Who Would Be King with Sean Connery and Michael Caine (and Christopher Plummer) was definitely very good. Are there any contemporary actors who have the Sean Connery smirk? Pierce Brosnan tries. Owen Wilson has the smirk naturally but he plays the idiot too much. I don't watch enough movies for this conversation so I'll stop now.
We've been getting lots of rain, though not as much as Southern California. Two of my Southern Cal friends (John/Jon) have some nice things to say. This morning LR and I watched huge gusts of rain sweep across the mall parking lot outside our balcony, with thunder rolls in the background. I used to say I liked rain and "weather" in general. Now, I think I am more just stunned by it. Weather is something that is sublime and awe-inspiring rather than something to be liked or disliked, as though it is a new paperback. If my soul is feeling young I will go out and stomp through mud, feel my face smart from so many faerie pricks of rain and get cold down my neck, and if it feels old it will curl up in a comfy chair with cocoa. The point is that it deserves to be reflected on in some fashion, otherwise how do we know what to think feel or do when a tsunami hits?
In any case, that is exactly what I have been doing today. We came back from vacation with a list of inspiring activities to do around the Bay, only to find out that our car is still not reparied. A rain-induced power outage is further slowing the tedious process. We took a trip to the closest mall/theatre complex and saw meet the fockers. I think I essentially agree with Nathan J. In that while I dreaded walking in there, and didn't enjoy it that much, it has somehow been the subject material for several conversations today. Like a lot of contemporary comedies, I think more thought was put into the movie than most people give Hollywood credit for. I've decided that I don't want to be Fockerized, though.
Onwards and Upwards.
As a post-script, and speaking of movies, Master and Commander inspired me to buy a CD of Bach's Cello suites played by Mtislav Rostropovich a while ago. Besides things like "wee willy winkie," "little nutbrownhare" and "momma's gonna buy you a mockingbird", the first suite has been going through my head incessantly (which it is quite welcome to do, especially if it captures and violently kills the damned wee willy). The prelude was in the film, but it is all quite moving--well, I can' t ever describe classical pieces correctly so I won't try.
Anyway, it took five days, but we're all normal now, and yesterday my brain began to function again. Huzzah! In the meantime I watched more movies than I think I've watched in the last two years combined. None of them were incredible, though The Man Who Would Be King with Sean Connery and Michael Caine (and Christopher Plummer) was definitely very good. Are there any contemporary actors who have the Sean Connery smirk? Pierce Brosnan tries. Owen Wilson has the smirk naturally but he plays the idiot too much. I don't watch enough movies for this conversation so I'll stop now.
We've been getting lots of rain, though not as much as Southern California. Two of my Southern Cal friends (John/Jon) have some nice things to say. This morning LR and I watched huge gusts of rain sweep across the mall parking lot outside our balcony, with thunder rolls in the background. I used to say I liked rain and "weather" in general. Now, I think I am more just stunned by it. Weather is something that is sublime and awe-inspiring rather than something to be liked or disliked, as though it is a new paperback. If my soul is feeling young I will go out and stomp through mud, feel my face smart from so many faerie pricks of rain and get cold down my neck, and if it feels old it will curl up in a comfy chair with cocoa. The point is that it deserves to be reflected on in some fashion, otherwise how do we know what to think feel or do when a tsunami hits?
In any case, that is exactly what I have been doing today. We came back from vacation with a list of inspiring activities to do around the Bay, only to find out that our car is still not reparied. A rain-induced power outage is further slowing the tedious process. We took a trip to the closest mall/theatre complex and saw meet the fockers. I think I essentially agree with Nathan J. In that while I dreaded walking in there, and didn't enjoy it that much, it has somehow been the subject material for several conversations today. Like a lot of contemporary comedies, I think more thought was put into the movie than most people give Hollywood credit for. I've decided that I don't want to be Fockerized, though.
Onwards and Upwards.
As a post-script, and speaking of movies, Master and Commander inspired me to buy a CD of Bach's Cello suites played by Mtislav Rostropovich a while ago. Besides things like "wee willy winkie," "little nutbrownhare" and "momma's gonna buy you a mockingbird", the first suite has been going through my head incessantly (which it is quite welcome to do, especially if it captures and violently kills the damned wee willy). The prelude was in the film, but it is all quite moving--well, I can' t ever describe classical pieces correctly so I won't try.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Marking Up Books
Bill Vallicella has a short post beginning with the question
"Have you noticed that the same people who are morally obtuse enough to underline and annotate library books tend to be the same people who are too intellectually obtuse to make good comments?"
A reader of his also has a follow-up in which he notes that
"There's another problem with these people: they annotate the book and then they return it, which not only annoys others, but also renders their droppings unavailable to serve their own future readings."
The whole exchange reminded me of a passage from C. S. Lewis:
"He [Milton] is writing epic poetry which is a species of narrative poetry, and neither the species nor the genus is very well understood at present. The misunderstanding of the genus (narrative poetry) I have learned from looking into used copies of our great narrative poems. In them you find often enough a number of not very remarkable lines underscored with pencil in the first two pages, and all the rest of the book virgin. It is easy to see what has happened. The unfortunate reader has set out expecting 'good lines' -- little ebullient patches of delight -- such as he is accustomed to find in lyrics, and has thought he was finding them in things that took his fancy for accidental reasons during the first five minutes; after that, finding that the poem cannot really be read in this way, he has given it up." (Lewis, A Preface to Paradise Lost [1942; London: Oxford, 1965], 1-2)
I myself have in many used bookstores double-checked Lewis's observation, and I don't think I've ever found a copy of a narrative poem marked up past the first chapter.
"Have you noticed that the same people who are morally obtuse enough to underline and annotate library books tend to be the same people who are too intellectually obtuse to make good comments?"
A reader of his also has a follow-up in which he notes that
"There's another problem with these people: they annotate the book and then they return it, which not only annoys others, but also renders their droppings unavailable to serve their own future readings."
The whole exchange reminded me of a passage from C. S. Lewis:
"He [Milton] is writing epic poetry which is a species of narrative poetry, and neither the species nor the genus is very well understood at present. The misunderstanding of the genus (narrative poetry) I have learned from looking into used copies of our great narrative poems. In them you find often enough a number of not very remarkable lines underscored with pencil in the first two pages, and all the rest of the book virgin. It is easy to see what has happened. The unfortunate reader has set out expecting 'good lines' -- little ebullient patches of delight -- such as he is accustomed to find in lyrics, and has thought he was finding them in things that took his fancy for accidental reasons during the first five minutes; after that, finding that the poem cannot really be read in this way, he has given it up." (Lewis, A Preface to Paradise Lost [1942; London: Oxford, 1965], 1-2)
I myself have in many used bookstores double-checked Lewis's observation, and I don't think I've ever found a copy of a narrative poem marked up past the first chapter.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Republic 328e4-7
And in particular I would gladly learn of you how this appears to you, since you are already at the time of life that the poets say is "the threshold of old age": whether life is difficult, or how do you report it?
[Shorey has some footnotes on this sentence. Adam notes that what the poets say "occurs first in the Iliad (XXII 60, XXIV 487) to denote the natural limit of the life of man." Both of the instances Adam lists are poignant moments in the Iliad.
Grammatically, the tricky part of this sentence is at the end. In the Greek, it's not necessarily a question, though I suppose maybe it could be: the Greek originally lacked punctuation (so no question marks), but the word I've translated "how" (pos), is not an interrogative (it usually means "in any way," "at all," or "by any means"). Literally, it would be something like "whether life is difficult, or in [what] manner you report it."]
[Shorey has some footnotes on this sentence. Adam notes that what the poets say "occurs first in the Iliad (XXII 60, XXIV 487) to denote the natural limit of the life of man." Both of the instances Adam lists are poignant moments in the Iliad.
Grammatically, the tricky part of this sentence is at the end. In the Greek, it's not necessarily a question, though I suppose maybe it could be: the Greek originally lacked punctuation (so no question marks), but the word I've translated "how" (pos), is not an interrogative (it usually means "in any way," "at all," or "by any means"). Literally, it would be something like "whether life is difficult, or in [what] manner you report it."]
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Republic 328d6-e4
And yet Cephalus, I said, I do enjoy discussing with the very old; for it seems to me to be necessary to learn from them, just as we might ask someone advancing on a road, which we also will probably want to pass over, of what sort of road it is, whether rugged and difficult, or smooth and easy.
[One has to add "we might ask" or something similar to make sense of the sentence.]
[One has to add "we might ask" or something similar to make sense of the sentence.]
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Republic 328d4-6
So do not do otherwise, but be knowledgeable with these young men and come hither to us as to your friends and very family.
[Translating this sentence is like disentangling your Christmas lights after you threw them in the box last year: it's not impossible to do, though it is difficult, and by the time you're done, some of the lights no longer work. It's possible to translate this sentence into passable English, but some aspect of the Greek is going to be left out. Mine leaves out the notion of resort in the verb phoita. It would have been strained to include it. Let me give some other translations (beginning with my least favorite and going on to better ones) before explaining mine.
Cornford: "So you must not disappoint me. Treat us like old friends, and come here often to have a talk with these young men." (This trans. Inexplicably moves the "old friends" before the "young men.")
Grube: "So be sure to come more often and talk to these youngsters, as you would to good friends and relations." (Ignores the first clause. Also uses the word "youngsters"; the youngsters in question are not children but young adult men.)
Griffith: "So do please spend some time with these young men. Do come here and visit us. Regard us as your friends -- as your family, even." (Takes three sentences to do what Plato does in one. Ignores the first clause, too.)
Lee: "So don't refuse me, but come and talk to the young men here and visit us as if we were old friends." (Omits "relatives" at the end.)
Reeve: "So do as I say: Stay with these young men now, but come regularly to see us, just as you would to friends or relatives."
Bloom: "Now do as I say: be with these young men, but come here regularly to us as to friends and your very own kin."
Shorey: "Don't refuse then, but be yourself a companion to these lads and make our house your resort and regard us as your very good friends and intimates."
Regarding the first clause, my translation is literal, but I don't think it's awkward, or at least awkward enough to require something else. In the second phrase, the awkwardness begins. The sticky wicket is sunisthi, the present imperative (2s) of sunoida, meaning "share in knowledge of" or "be cognizant of." This is what I'm translating as "be knowledgeable with." I'll let the reader judge whether this is better than the alternatives listed above. Most of them use a "talk" instead of a "know" verb, but I don't think "talk" is sufficient to convey the meaning of sunoida. But I admit that my translation is awkward. (I'm also wondering if there are any implications that knowing has connotations of "knowing" in the KJV, as in "Adam knew Eve.")
Reeve's translation also implies that S. will stay with the young men now and come back to see "us" (who? C. using the royal we?) later. The choice in the Greek is not clear. Can S. do both at once, or does he have to choose between being with the young men and being with C.? If so, why? Adam has some relevant comments. He seems to take the young men to be S.'s friends from Athens, and "us" as referring to C., P., and the other (foreigners?) living in the Piraeus. So the sense might be "S., associate with the young men of Athens, but come also to see us in the Piraeus."
I've added "your" before "friends." It seemed to make the sentence read better. Maybe it's unnecessary.
For the preceding sentences -- I know it's been a while -- see here and here.]
[Translating this sentence is like disentangling your Christmas lights after you threw them in the box last year: it's not impossible to do, though it is difficult, and by the time you're done, some of the lights no longer work. It's possible to translate this sentence into passable English, but some aspect of the Greek is going to be left out. Mine leaves out the notion of resort in the verb phoita. It would have been strained to include it. Let me give some other translations (beginning with my least favorite and going on to better ones) before explaining mine.
Cornford: "So you must not disappoint me. Treat us like old friends, and come here often to have a talk with these young men." (This trans. Inexplicably moves the "old friends" before the "young men.")
Grube: "So be sure to come more often and talk to these youngsters, as you would to good friends and relations." (Ignores the first clause. Also uses the word "youngsters"; the youngsters in question are not children but young adult men.)
Griffith: "So do please spend some time with these young men. Do come here and visit us. Regard us as your friends -- as your family, even." (Takes three sentences to do what Plato does in one. Ignores the first clause, too.)
Lee: "So don't refuse me, but come and talk to the young men here and visit us as if we were old friends." (Omits "relatives" at the end.)
Reeve: "So do as I say: Stay with these young men now, but come regularly to see us, just as you would to friends or relatives."
Bloom: "Now do as I say: be with these young men, but come here regularly to us as to friends and your very own kin."
Shorey: "Don't refuse then, but be yourself a companion to these lads and make our house your resort and regard us as your very good friends and intimates."
Regarding the first clause, my translation is literal, but I don't think it's awkward, or at least awkward enough to require something else. In the second phrase, the awkwardness begins. The sticky wicket is sunisthi, the present imperative (2s) of sunoida, meaning "share in knowledge of" or "be cognizant of." This is what I'm translating as "be knowledgeable with." I'll let the reader judge whether this is better than the alternatives listed above. Most of them use a "talk" instead of a "know" verb, but I don't think "talk" is sufficient to convey the meaning of sunoida. But I admit that my translation is awkward. (I'm also wondering if there are any implications that knowing has connotations of "knowing" in the KJV, as in "Adam knew Eve.")
Reeve's translation also implies that S. will stay with the young men now and come back to see "us" (who? C. using the royal we?) later. The choice in the Greek is not clear. Can S. do both at once, or does he have to choose between being with the young men and being with C.? If so, why? Adam has some relevant comments. He seems to take the young men to be S.'s friends from Athens, and "us" as referring to C., P., and the other (foreigners?) living in the Piraeus. So the sense might be "S., associate with the young men of Athens, but come also to see us in the Piraeus."
I've added "your" before "friends." It seemed to make the sentence read better. Maybe it's unnecessary.
For the preceding sentences -- I know it's been a while -- see here and here.]
Monday, January 03, 2005
Now we've both been robbed
At least that is what it feels like to an armchair fan. Actually, I have been in a minimal-media vortex for two weeks, and so all the news I bothered to get about the bowl games last week were the scores at espn.com. I'm now happy about that decision. So, to the Twins, Dodgers, Cal Football (my newest love), Vikings Football (a pre-emptive strike), and all the Burglar's hopeless obsessions: here's to next year!
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Rose Bowl Woes
I don't understand why Carr didn't use a timeout to stop the clock as Texas got into position for a field goal. Did he think that it was a difficult kick to make? From my perspective, it seemed much more probable than not that the kick would be good. The distance of the field goal was not that great, and the kicker was a senior, not some wobbly underclassman. Carr's strategy left UM with no time after the kick.
Oh well, Michigan looks good at quarterback and running back in the next few years.
Oh well, Michigan looks good at quarterback and running back in the next few years.
New Year's Resolutions
So, some of these are taken verbatim from last year.
1. Don't let the dishes pile up in the sink (or anywhere else).
2. Complete reading for classes ahead of time.
3. Write first drafts of all my major papers and solicit criticism on them.
4. Study Greek one hour a day.
5. Stock music collection with classical music.
6. Be friendlier.
7. Spend less time on the Internet.
8. Learn QuarkExpress.
9. Read all of Plato's works (in English).
10. Read The Man without Qualities.
1. Don't let the dishes pile up in the sink (or anywhere else).
2. Complete reading for classes ahead of time.
3. Write first drafts of all my major papers and solicit criticism on them.
4. Study Greek one hour a day.
5. Stock music collection with classical music.
6. Be friendlier.
7. Spend less time on the Internet.
8. Learn QuarkExpress.
9. Read all of Plato's works (in English).
10. Read The Man without Qualities.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Why Cal Didn't Belong in the Rose Bowl
The final numbers: Texas Tech 45, Cal 31. Of course, I might eat these words tomorrow if Michigan plays like they did in last year's Rose Bowl.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Muhammed is not your friend
One of the blackest holes in my knowledge of the history of the world's religions is Islam. Excessively ignorant, but at least I am self-aware. Given that Islam played a major role in Byzantine History, however, I realized that this is a situation that demands more swift rectification than, say, my interest in Ancient Chinese History. Over this Christmas break, then, I have been trying to get a bit of a foundation for Islam, reading the Koran and the Sirat (Life of the Prophet).
I'll be frank, it has not been either uplifting, encouraging, or inspiring and it has not helped me to at all appreciate statements by President Bush about "good muslims" and their compatability with America and her goals and values. Aside: it is perhaps unfair to label our President with this, since he is probably simply taking the word of a trusted advisor, which I don't have a problem with in and of itself--he is the last in a long chain of education and thought. However, our President vocalizes the --almost unquestioned-- majority opinion among intellectuals, and the implications and extensive consensus of that majority opinion, and so I think I am justified as using him as a current figurehead. Enough.
I still have a significant portion of both texts to read, but thus far I have been extremely unimpressed with the person of Muhammed. In fact, downright disgusted. I will perhaps explain myself more when I have finished my little reading list (which includes a few other texts) and provide a plethora of examples, but for now my opinion on the subject is similar to that expressed in a quote by Alexis de Tocqueville that I happened upon:
"I studied the Koran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammed. As far as I can see, it is the principle cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."
Here's the thing (and it will take me a little bit to get back round to my main point, but bear with). There ARE the people within the folds of both Christianity and of Islam who fall into the (actually useless) labels of "fundamentalist" that the MSM likes to continually use. There is the potential person, somewhere in Christianity, who still actually thinks and would vocalize that we need to fight a holy war against the Infidel and take back the holy land and that such an enterprise is explicitely blessed/commanded by God. I am willing to say this person exists somewhere because I have met people who exemplify tendencies or parts of this vision, but not the whole. So, all right, let us grant that this Christian exists somewhere.
However, in all my years being raised in a (warning you may be offended by me after I use these labels) fundamentalist evangelical family, Church and frequently schools, I have yet to meet this person. There are an infinite number of reasons to support the state of Israel that have nothing to do with the so-called "Zionism" that is supposedly the characteristic mark of Evangelical Fundamentalists: it is gross error to attribute America's allegiance with Israel as only upheld by foamy-mouthed "Zionists" (wherever they may be). The point here is that the "fundamentalism" in Christianity (as characterized by MSM) is truly on the fringe. There are those ideas within the Christian fold, but they're strange, they're not standard, they're not explicit, and they are certainely not required by either Holy Bible nor by Holy Tradition.
MSM, and their liberal intellectual chums attempt to parallel the fundamentalism of Islam with the "fundamentalism" of Christianity. What they do have right is that "fundamentalism" as methodology is basically a return to the literal strictures of the Book. As presented it is simple, populist and on the surface: anyone can pick up the book, read, and say, yep, I see where you get that. The problem is that it is not the methodology that is the problem here, though that is what is always blamed and used as the label. Rather, it is difference in the content of the respective books. Do any of the people who throw around these labels actually read the Bible and the Koran? Notice any [?!slight!?] differences?
Christian fundamentalists are not required to be "Zionist Crusaders". As I said above, the great majority are not. On the other hand, a Muslim fundamentalist is, by definition, a jihadist. 100% of Muslim fundamentalists believe the jihad (the physical one) is divinely ordained. Why? Because its in their texts, it is explicit, it is obvious.
A Christian reading the Bible has to jump through major interpretative hoops to get to Zionism.
A Muslim reading the Koran has to jump through major interprative hoops to get out of Jihad.
This is a major difference, my friends, and no one is acknowledging it.
I'll be frank, it has not been either uplifting, encouraging, or inspiring and it has not helped me to at all appreciate statements by President Bush about "good muslims" and their compatability with America and her goals and values. Aside: it is perhaps unfair to label our President with this, since he is probably simply taking the word of a trusted advisor, which I don't have a problem with in and of itself--he is the last in a long chain of education and thought. However, our President vocalizes the --almost unquestioned-- majority opinion among intellectuals, and the implications and extensive consensus of that majority opinion, and so I think I am justified as using him as a current figurehead. Enough.
I still have a significant portion of both texts to read, but thus far I have been extremely unimpressed with the person of Muhammed. In fact, downright disgusted. I will perhaps explain myself more when I have finished my little reading list (which includes a few other texts) and provide a plethora of examples, but for now my opinion on the subject is similar to that expressed in a quote by Alexis de Tocqueville that I happened upon:
"I studied the Koran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammed. As far as I can see, it is the principle cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."
Here's the thing (and it will take me a little bit to get back round to my main point, but bear with). There ARE the people within the folds of both Christianity and of Islam who fall into the (actually useless) labels of "fundamentalist" that the MSM likes to continually use. There is the potential person, somewhere in Christianity, who still actually thinks and would vocalize that we need to fight a holy war against the Infidel and take back the holy land and that such an enterprise is explicitely blessed/commanded by God. I am willing to say this person exists somewhere because I have met people who exemplify tendencies or parts of this vision, but not the whole. So, all right, let us grant that this Christian exists somewhere.
However, in all my years being raised in a (warning you may be offended by me after I use these labels) fundamentalist evangelical family, Church and frequently schools, I have yet to meet this person. There are an infinite number of reasons to support the state of Israel that have nothing to do with the so-called "Zionism" that is supposedly the characteristic mark of Evangelical Fundamentalists: it is gross error to attribute America's allegiance with Israel as only upheld by foamy-mouthed "Zionists" (wherever they may be). The point here is that the "fundamentalism" in Christianity (as characterized by MSM) is truly on the fringe. There are those ideas within the Christian fold, but they're strange, they're not standard, they're not explicit, and they are certainely not required by either Holy Bible nor by Holy Tradition.
MSM, and their liberal intellectual chums attempt to parallel the fundamentalism of Islam with the "fundamentalism" of Christianity. What they do have right is that "fundamentalism" as methodology is basically a return to the literal strictures of the Book. As presented it is simple, populist and on the surface: anyone can pick up the book, read, and say, yep, I see where you get that. The problem is that it is not the methodology that is the problem here, though that is what is always blamed and used as the label. Rather, it is difference in the content of the respective books. Do any of the people who throw around these labels actually read the Bible and the Koran? Notice any [?!slight!?] differences?
Christian fundamentalists are not required to be "Zionist Crusaders". As I said above, the great majority are not. On the other hand, a Muslim fundamentalist is, by definition, a jihadist. 100% of Muslim fundamentalists believe the jihad (the physical one) is divinely ordained. Why? Because its in their texts, it is explicit, it is obvious.
A Christian reading the Bible has to jump through major interpretative hoops to get to Zionism.
A Muslim reading the Koran has to jump through major interprative hoops to get out of Jihad.
This is a major difference, my friends, and no one is acknowledging it.
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Friday, December 10, 2004
Help Me, Philosophic Types
I want to make an argument that there is a fundamental difference between "Critical" and "Dialectic" methods of thought. I do not think that my arguement is stretching anything. However, I have attempted to make this argument to others and been questioned on this basic distinction. I am seeking confirmation of my sanity.
I understand the Modern Critical Method as taking nothing for granted: its goal is to show that X is not the case, to question the very nature, existence and truth claim of X, and in some cases to go on to explain how the idea or belief in X came about. Classical Dialectic, on the other hand, while its method is necessarily negative, starts from the existence of X. Socrates in the dialogues of Plato, does not ever question that X is. Where is the discussion on whether or not there is "good"? Whether or not X or Y or Z is good is discussed throughout, but the existence of the Good is not in doubt; the same could be said for the Beautiful or the Just. I think this is so basic that it is the fundamental basis of the Dialogues. The "Elenchus" is useless unless there is a point of Catholic Truth (not in the religious sense). There is a difference between Plato and Descartes (to use him as representative).
I see a parallel between this (Dialectic) and Apophaticism. Negation is the method, but at the heart of it there is unquestioned reality. Imperfect language can only be used negatively to refer to the real being/notbeing. The Being/Notbeing is not questioned.
I need to learn to write with fewer qualifying clauses. I've been reading too much Thucydides.
I understand the Modern Critical Method as taking nothing for granted: its goal is to show that X is not the case, to question the very nature, existence and truth claim of X, and in some cases to go on to explain how the idea or belief in X came about. Classical Dialectic, on the other hand, while its method is necessarily negative, starts from the existence of X. Socrates in the dialogues of Plato, does not ever question that X is. Where is the discussion on whether or not there is "good"? Whether or not X or Y or Z is good is discussed throughout, but the existence of the Good is not in doubt; the same could be said for the Beautiful or the Just. I think this is so basic that it is the fundamental basis of the Dialogues. The "Elenchus" is useless unless there is a point of Catholic Truth (not in the religious sense). There is a difference between Plato and Descartes (to use him as representative).
I see a parallel between this (Dialectic) and Apophaticism. Negation is the method, but at the heart of it there is unquestioned reality. Imperfect language can only be used negatively to refer to the real being/notbeing. The Being/Notbeing is not questioned.
I need to learn to write with fewer qualifying clauses. I've been reading too much Thucydides.
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
Antony Flew, one of the leading atheists of this century, has converted to theism. Philosophia Christi has an interview between Flew and his friend, Gary Habermas of Liberty University.
There is also an AP news story about Flew's decision.
Flew says he is a theist but not a Christian. From the interview:
There is also an AP news story about Flew's decision.
Flew says he is a theist but not a Christian. From the interview:
HABERMAS: C. S. Lewis explained in his autobiography that he moved first from atheism to theism and only later from theism to Christianity. Given your great respect for Christianity, do you think that there is any chance that you might in the end move from theism to Christianity?
FLEW: I think it’s very unlikely, due to the problem of evil. But, if it did happen, I think it would be in some eccentric fit and doubtfully orthodox form: regular religious practice perhaps but without belief. If I wanted any sort of future life I should become a Jehovah’s Witness. But some things I am completely confident about. I would never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear because it is fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam. . . .
HABERMAS: I ask this last question with a smile, Tony. But just think what would happen if one day you were pleasantly disposed toward Christianity and all of a sudden the resurrection of Jesus looked pretty good to you?
FLEW: Well, one thing I’ll say in this comparison is that, for goodness sake, Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most emphatically is not.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Books I Wished I Owned
Michael Gilleland has a post on books he wished he owned. I'll copy his first one, J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, but here's the rest of my list.
Plato, Platonis Opera, vols. 1-5.
James Adam, The Republic of Plato, vols. 1-2.
John Burnet, Essays and Addresses.
Renford Bambrough, New Essays on Plato and Aristotle.
A. E. Taylor, Commentary on Plato's Timaeus.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, vols. 1-5.
Charles Williams, Taliessin through Logres.
And since I don't want to be ungrateful, here's some books I'm thankful to own.
Charles Williams, Figure of Beatrice.
Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed (trans. Pines), vols. 1-2.
Richard Purtill, Logic for Philosophers.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, vols. 1-5.
Plato, Platonis Opera, vols. 1-5.
James Adam, The Republic of Plato, vols. 1-2.
John Burnet, Essays and Addresses.
Renford Bambrough, New Essays on Plato and Aristotle.
A. E. Taylor, Commentary on Plato's Timaeus.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, vols. 1-5.
Charles Williams, Taliessin through Logres.
And since I don't want to be ungrateful, here's some books I'm thankful to own.
Charles Williams, Figure of Beatrice.
Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed (trans. Pines), vols. 1-2.
Richard Purtill, Logic for Philosophers.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, vols. 1-5.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Wayne Says Sources Say Pope Says Bush is Antichrist
Who is Wayne Madsen, and why does he have any credibility with the Catholic Times?
(Yes, it's true; I should be writing a paper now.)
(Yes, it's true; I should be writing a paper now.)
Excellent Article on Art Criticism
A friend of mine pointed this article out to me a while back. I was reading it over recently and was reminded of how good it is. A quotation: "As a critic, lately I've begun to feel that something more than explaining and advocacy is called for, that qualitative choices must be made -- and articulated." Read the whole thing.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Lucky for Cal
Thorgerson laments that there will be no Michigan-Cal showdown in the Rose Bowl this year. Thorgerson should thank his lucky stars that he won't have to see Michigan humiliate Cal on national television. His lachrymosity should be joyful, not sad.
Republic 328d2-4
"For you should know that, for me, as the other pleasures, those of the body, wither away, the desires and pleasures concerning speeches grow the more."
[There's a question here about translating "emoige," i.e., "for me." I followed Shorey in translating it as a dative proper, whereas Bloom puts it in the locative dative. I didn't like Bloom's decision since emoige appears outside the relative phrase containing its purported object, "pleasures."
This is the first contrast in the Republic of bodily pleasures with something else. Shorey says that "Plato characteristically contrasts the transitory pleasures of the body with the enduring joys of the mind," but here we have not a mind/body contrast but a contrast between the pleasures of the body and the pleasures "connected with" (to use Bloom's translation) tous logous. Does Cephalus realize that the pleasures of speeches are pleasures of the highest part of the soul? Plato certainly seems to make that connection later in the dialogue, but does Cephalus know about the tripartite soul?]
[There's a question here about translating "emoige," i.e., "for me." I followed Shorey in translating it as a dative proper, whereas Bloom puts it in the locative dative. I didn't like Bloom's decision since emoige appears outside the relative phrase containing its purported object, "pleasures."
This is the first contrast in the Republic of bodily pleasures with something else. Shorey says that "Plato characteristically contrasts the transitory pleasures of the body with the enduring joys of the mind," but here we have not a mind/body contrast but a contrast between the pleasures of the body and the pleasures "connected with" (to use Bloom's translation) tous logous. Does Cephalus realize that the pleasures of speeches are pleasures of the highest part of the soul? Plato certainly seems to make that connection later in the dialogue, but does Cephalus know about the tripartite soul?]
Sad Sad Day
There will be no justice at the Rose Bowl this year. Neither will there be the great Burglar showdown that I was anticipating. No potential for a blow by blow blog-o-rama in which Cal wiped the grass with Michigan and I got to let the Burglar know all about it. I weep.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Bothered by Target
This is frustrating. Why is it so frustrating? Should I be more worked up over Iraq, the Goningen Protocol, Theo Van Gogh, North Korea and Iran? Maybe, and I probably am, but America [and by America I mean final bastion of Western Culture] will stand or fall by the charitas of the homeland.
(Audio piece)
(Opinion piece, facts are at the end of the second page)
Will this ultimately matter? In terms of tangibles, not as much as the Salvation Army figure of $9M, because they will find other places to ring a ling, but it is shameful. But it is the principle of the thing. NO ONE in their right mind considers the Salvation Army solicitors. I wish solicitors were half as uninvasive. The Salvation army is not those kids who ask you if you want them to go to college, and would you please buy this subscription for $50, ten of which will go towards them going to Magic Mountain for a day, and two of which will be put in a scholarship fund which they will never see because they can't go to college if they're not sitting at home doing their homework NOW.
The day we start BANNING the Salvation Army is not the end of the world, but it is corporate entities seeing the world from the top down. We, the corpus, need the salvation army at the door of Target to redeem (if by only a little) our wantonness inside the doors, and to remind us of the greater corpus when we leave with our credit card receipt.
(Audio piece)
(Opinion piece, facts are at the end of the second page)
Will this ultimately matter? In terms of tangibles, not as much as the Salvation Army figure of $9M, because they will find other places to ring a ling, but it is shameful. But it is the principle of the thing. NO ONE in their right mind considers the Salvation Army solicitors. I wish solicitors were half as uninvasive. The Salvation army is not those kids who ask you if you want them to go to college, and would you please buy this subscription for $50, ten of which will go towards them going to Magic Mountain for a day, and two of which will be put in a scholarship fund which they will never see because they can't go to college if they're not sitting at home doing their homework NOW.
The day we start BANNING the Salvation Army is not the end of the world, but it is corporate entities seeing the world from the top down. We, the corpus, need the salvation army at the door of Target to redeem (if by only a little) our wantonness inside the doors, and to remind us of the greater corpus when we leave with our credit card receipt.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation (1863)
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.
A. Lincoln
Monday, November 22, 2004
Partner in Crime
Greetings Fans and Loved Ones of the Burglar. I will try not to be too obnoxious with my own special sense of humor on this page of otherwise notable intelligence.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Still Roses, Barely
Michigan lost to Ohio State, which is always bad. (I almost flew from California to Ohio for the game. Perhaps it's best I didn't.) But it looks like Iowa is picking up UM's slack by beating Wisconsin. So UM will end up in the Rose Bowl despite losing to rivals Notre Dame and Ohio State in the same season.
A Contest, Sort of
A big congratulations is ready for anyone who knows where the name "Bourgeois Burglar" comes from. When I started this Live Journal, I thought it was an original creation of mine, but later I realized I had read the phrase in a book -- a book about one of my favorite books -- a while back, and I guess it was lodged in my subconscious.
Alternatively, you could guess who the original Bourgeois Burglar is. Of course, if you know who coined the name "Bourgeois Burglar," then you know who the Bourgeois Burglar is.
Using Google to find the answer would work, but it wouldn't be much fun, now, would it?
If you don't want to use Google, but you want hints, let me know.
Alternatively, you could guess who the original Bourgeois Burglar is. Of course, if you know who coined the name "Bourgeois Burglar," then you know who the Bourgeois Burglar is.
Using Google to find the answer would work, but it wouldn't be much fun, now, would it?
If you don't want to use Google, but you want hints, let me know.
Friday, November 19, 2004
141 Years ago Today
Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Republic Translation
Apologies to those who check in here to follow the progress of my Republic translation. I'll resume translating in a few days.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Revisiting Those New Year's Resolutions
To recap, the resolutions were the following:
1. Don't let the dishes pile up in the sink.
2. Complete reading for classes ahead of time.
3. Write first drafts of all my major papers and solicit criticism on them.
4. Study Greek one hour a day.
5. Study Latin one hour a day.
6. Stock music collection with classical music again.
7. Write a letter to Jaroslav Pelikan asking him for advice on how to succeed as a scholar.
8. Acquire good art for apartment walls.
9. Find new prime number.
10. Read Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities
To wit, I have completely succeeded in none of these. I have partially succeeded at numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. I have not done 7 or 8, but there is still time to do so before the year's end. Numbers 5, 9, and 10, however, show no signs of being completed by the year's end.
1. Don't let the dishes pile up in the sink.
2. Complete reading for classes ahead of time.
3. Write first drafts of all my major papers and solicit criticism on them.
4. Study Greek one hour a day.
5. Study Latin one hour a day.
6. Stock music collection with classical music again.
7. Write a letter to Jaroslav Pelikan asking him for advice on how to succeed as a scholar.
8. Acquire good art for apartment walls.
9. Find new prime number.
10. Read Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities
To wit, I have completely succeeded in none of these. I have partially succeeded at numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. I have not done 7 or 8, but there is still time to do so before the year's end. Numbers 5, 9, and 10, however, show no signs of being completed by the year's end.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Republic 328c7-d2
"For if I were still able to get myself easily to town, it wouldn't be necessary at all for you to come here; instead, we would come to you. But, as it is, you ought to come here more frequently."
[Note that the "you" in this sentence is singular (all three times); i.e., C. addresses himself to S. and not to S. and G.]
[Note that the "you" in this sentence is singular (all three times); i.e., C. addresses himself to S. and not to S. and G.]
Monday, November 01, 2004
Republic 328c5-7
As soon as he saw me, Cephalus greeted me warmly and said, "Socrates, you do not often come down to us in the Piraeus, but you certainly ought to."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)