Happy Easter!
I am going to bed, and tomorrow I have the pleasure of going to Church to celebrate the Resurrection. Lent is ended, the fast is over and the new day brings the hope and light of a life of hope. Now to feast. Now to acknowledge our deep joy, and to feel it, truly, by acknowledging the source of it.
And that source of hope is Jesus' resurrection.
Christ is risen!
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Chesterton and An Anthrocentric God
Introduction
This post has an introduction, some remarks that preface my other remarks. Any post that has an introduction, that is worthy of a preface of any sort, is bound to be a long post. For that I apologize, but for the content of the post, after the preface anyway, I do not yet apologize, because I think it is very important and probably true.
The other thing I'd like to say as way of introduction is that these thoughts are G.K. Chesterton's first, and mine secondly. But, allow me to point out that, in truth, G.K. Chesterton's thoughts were the medievals' first, and his secondly, and his great creativity was a reflection of antiquity past. Since I am a lesser man than G.K. Chesterton, I can draw from his distillment and press onward. The other thinker I am consciously considering is Saint Thomas Aquinas, who explicitly argues for an anthrocentric world in the Summa Theologicae, very convincingly.
What I plan on arguing is that the world is anthrocentric, that God created it for man, and not only for man's existence basically (a marvelous thing, truly) but for man's happiness, a more marvelous thing than existence because it is about existing well. I intend to do so from a Christian, theistic perspective, unapologetically. If you want a little more basic perspective, read Chesterton's Orthodoxy. He presents what I take, fundamentally, to be an anthrocentric universe there, and calls it Fairy Land philosophy. I don't necessarily agree with Chesterton entirely, since I'm not entirely clear with how to take my thoughts on him yet. I'm writing this post because of the the book and because of a conversation.
The Cosmos' Anthrocentricity
I am not sure how to argue this most successfully, because I can see several semi-successful lines of argumentation, which convince me, but may not others. I hope that a reader will be critical and charitable.
God created the world. This premise is evident from Revelation, and very arguable from creation without revelation. I believe that it can be shown that the only sufficient explanation for the existence of the world must be a first mover, for several reasons, but it's not my task here to argue a cosmological argument. Several good cosmological arguments may be found in Aquinas' Summa Theologiae and in his Summa Contra Gentiles. They're at the beginning of the book. A good modern analytical commentator to read, who thinks that Aquinas (in an unexpected place) argues successfully for a necessary first being is Norman Kretzmann, in Metaphysics of Theism. I think the First Way is probably successful, and one MacDonald "Aquinas Parisitic Cosmological Argument" shows how to read it. I'm not sure it's parasitic, like he says, but he distinguishes the proper kind of causal chain for Aquinas to argue from. But, anyway, I digress. All that I want to show is that God has created the world, and we know this from Genesis.
Of creation, Man is the most significant part. This is, to me, plain. Man was created last, and was the most significant of God's creations because we manifest soul in a higher way than any other being. If I was a medieval this is all that I would need to say, because obviously the more capacities proper to being a person possessed by an immaterial being, the "more noble" the being would be. So, animals manifest some aspects of personhood, but not in a significant way, but obviously, God manifests all significant elements of personhood perfectly. Man has limitations God does not, but we can still manifest attributes of personality that no other being in the physical created order does, namely reason, and so we are most like God.
Also, from revelation, we possess the imago dei.
There is a chain of being, of sorts, in which less significant parts exist to actualize more significant parts. Is it a stretch to say that fertile soil exists so plants can grow in it? Is it a stretch to see great pastureland exists so grazing animals can live on it? Without any of these things, they would cease to be. Taking a creator as true, then it seems evident that each part exists so that the system continues to exist.
Man's telos is happiness. We all desire happiness more than anything else, Aristotle remarks. Consider it. Ask yourself why you do this or that, press yourself on the desires of your heart, and you will come to this same conclusion. Happiness is the only thing that we want for itself, and not for the sake of something else. I want to be happy, and I will sacrifice many things to reach this happiness. If all men want happiness, then it is reasonable to figure that we were made to be happy, because anything that tends towards some end exists to fulfill that end. A good example is a seed. A seed tends invariably (if the situation is correct) towards becoming a tree. The tendency of a seed can be analogized to the tendency of mankind. As a seed tends towards being a tree, so does man tend towards being a happy man. This is what Aristotle calls our telos, and this is a version of his function argument.
As highest being, creation must move to bring man happiness. So, if there is a chain of being, and man is at the peak of it, then this chain of being must move in the service of mankind. And if it moves to serve mankind, this is best accomplished (as we would expect to find in a designed structure) by bring man to find happiness.
Answers to Modern Difficulties
One, the world seems impersonal. But this is only because this is what we've been taught. I can't see any fact derived from natural science that does not have the potential to bring man happiness. It must bring the scientists who found it happiness, or they would not have sought after it in the first place, right? It's worth thinking about!
Two, the world doesn't make me happy, why should I expect that it's trying to? The world is a source of great joy, which can be found in more than the pleasures of the scientist. Because we think we understand the world, people cannot find anymore joy in it sometimes. But they should look up again, and wonder in the fact that it is so regular. Chesterton's attempt is to show that the world is wonderful in this fact: it is the unfamiliar familiar. Though we seem to know it so well, we have no reason to think that it will remain the way that it is. And if we expect that it will change in some unexpected manner at any moment, every moment that it remains the way it is is the most wonderful moment. And so we can take pleasure and find joy in the fact that apple trees produce apples, for it is a miracle.
His argument on this point is a disproof of the belief in natural laws governing the interaction of physical objects. He takes the route of Hume, and buys the riddle of induction. The only reason to believe that something will happen again is that it's happened before. But this is not knowledge, this is only supposition. Just because something happens repeatedly does not show that it will happen again. To know it will happen again, we must make a deductive proof, but this is impossible. These are his words on the theories of a scientist, "They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two somehow make up a comprehensible thing."
And so, it is not irrational to suppose that there is joy to be found in the mere fact that creation is continuing to exist, and that it is continuing to exist in a regular way. Looking at the world, again, with these eyes will enable us to see the world as a place that can bring us happiness.
The Mystery of God's Love
If we step back a bit and reevaluate all that I just said in this post thus far, it seems that fundamental fact I've belabored can be boiled down to something deeper: that it is God who desires our happiness and has done all to bring it about. If nature is moving to bring us happiness, it is because God has put it there and then pushed it in such a way that we can know it and find this joy.
But of course, now, like Chesterton, we have rediscovered Christianity. For didn't we damn ourselves in the beginning, when creation must have been the most wonderful? And didn't God condescend to earth and die for our redemption? Doesn't this show that God desires us to push us onto being what He has designed us to be? For the incarnation, atonement and resurrection provide eternal life, which in its weakest formulation is the avoidance of eternal pain, a major stumbling block towards finding happiness. But, really, we know that Eternal Life is much much more, it is the pursuit for eternity of happiness in the true wonder, God Himself. If nature is unpredictable, it is because there is an unknown God behind it that it is hinting at. And when in eternal glory, it will be God that we will be engaged in knowning. And this will be true bliss.
But, is God anthrocentric if the world is anthrocentric? Yes and no. This is the cosmological paradox portrayed by Dante. God both moves the world from the furthest sphere of heaven, and the cosmosrotates around God. For, though God seeks to make us happy, it is as an instrument to His own happiness. And this happiness He has never lacked. And here we have come upon a deeper mystery than the post has set out to answer, and so I have gone too far and will stop.
Introduction
This post has an introduction, some remarks that preface my other remarks. Any post that has an introduction, that is worthy of a preface of any sort, is bound to be a long post. For that I apologize, but for the content of the post, after the preface anyway, I do not yet apologize, because I think it is very important and probably true.
The other thing I'd like to say as way of introduction is that these thoughts are G.K. Chesterton's first, and mine secondly. But, allow me to point out that, in truth, G.K. Chesterton's thoughts were the medievals' first, and his secondly, and his great creativity was a reflection of antiquity past. Since I am a lesser man than G.K. Chesterton, I can draw from his distillment and press onward. The other thinker I am consciously considering is Saint Thomas Aquinas, who explicitly argues for an anthrocentric world in the Summa Theologicae, very convincingly.
What I plan on arguing is that the world is anthrocentric, that God created it for man, and not only for man's existence basically (a marvelous thing, truly) but for man's happiness, a more marvelous thing than existence because it is about existing well. I intend to do so from a Christian, theistic perspective, unapologetically. If you want a little more basic perspective, read Chesterton's Orthodoxy. He presents what I take, fundamentally, to be an anthrocentric universe there, and calls it Fairy Land philosophy. I don't necessarily agree with Chesterton entirely, since I'm not entirely clear with how to take my thoughts on him yet. I'm writing this post because of the the book and because of a conversation.
The Cosmos' Anthrocentricity
I am not sure how to argue this most successfully, because I can see several semi-successful lines of argumentation, which convince me, but may not others. I hope that a reader will be critical and charitable.
God created the world. This premise is evident from Revelation, and very arguable from creation without revelation. I believe that it can be shown that the only sufficient explanation for the existence of the world must be a first mover, for several reasons, but it's not my task here to argue a cosmological argument. Several good cosmological arguments may be found in Aquinas' Summa Theologiae and in his Summa Contra Gentiles. They're at the beginning of the book. A good modern analytical commentator to read, who thinks that Aquinas (in an unexpected place) argues successfully for a necessary first being is Norman Kretzmann, in Metaphysics of Theism. I think the First Way is probably successful, and one MacDonald "Aquinas Parisitic Cosmological Argument" shows how to read it. I'm not sure it's parasitic, like he says, but he distinguishes the proper kind of causal chain for Aquinas to argue from. But, anyway, I digress. All that I want to show is that God has created the world, and we know this from Genesis.
Of creation, Man is the most significant part. This is, to me, plain. Man was created last, and was the most significant of God's creations because we manifest soul in a higher way than any other being. If I was a medieval this is all that I would need to say, because obviously the more capacities proper to being a person possessed by an immaterial being, the "more noble" the being would be. So, animals manifest some aspects of personhood, but not in a significant way, but obviously, God manifests all significant elements of personhood perfectly. Man has limitations God does not, but we can still manifest attributes of personality that no other being in the physical created order does, namely reason, and so we are most like God.
Also, from revelation, we possess the imago dei.
There is a chain of being, of sorts, in which less significant parts exist to actualize more significant parts. Is it a stretch to say that fertile soil exists so plants can grow in it? Is it a stretch to see great pastureland exists so grazing animals can live on it? Without any of these things, they would cease to be. Taking a creator as true, then it seems evident that each part exists so that the system continues to exist.
Man's telos is happiness. We all desire happiness more than anything else, Aristotle remarks. Consider it. Ask yourself why you do this or that, press yourself on the desires of your heart, and you will come to this same conclusion. Happiness is the only thing that we want for itself, and not for the sake of something else. I want to be happy, and I will sacrifice many things to reach this happiness. If all men want happiness, then it is reasonable to figure that we were made to be happy, because anything that tends towards some end exists to fulfill that end. A good example is a seed. A seed tends invariably (if the situation is correct) towards becoming a tree. The tendency of a seed can be analogized to the tendency of mankind. As a seed tends towards being a tree, so does man tend towards being a happy man. This is what Aristotle calls our telos, and this is a version of his function argument.
As highest being, creation must move to bring man happiness. So, if there is a chain of being, and man is at the peak of it, then this chain of being must move in the service of mankind. And if it moves to serve mankind, this is best accomplished (as we would expect to find in a designed structure) by bring man to find happiness.
Answers to Modern Difficulties
One, the world seems impersonal. But this is only because this is what we've been taught. I can't see any fact derived from natural science that does not have the potential to bring man happiness. It must bring the scientists who found it happiness, or they would not have sought after it in the first place, right? It's worth thinking about!
Two, the world doesn't make me happy, why should I expect that it's trying to? The world is a source of great joy, which can be found in more than the pleasures of the scientist. Because we think we understand the world, people cannot find anymore joy in it sometimes. But they should look up again, and wonder in the fact that it is so regular. Chesterton's attempt is to show that the world is wonderful in this fact: it is the unfamiliar familiar. Though we seem to know it so well, we have no reason to think that it will remain the way that it is. And if we expect that it will change in some unexpected manner at any moment, every moment that it remains the way it is is the most wonderful moment. And so we can take pleasure and find joy in the fact that apple trees produce apples, for it is a miracle.
His argument on this point is a disproof of the belief in natural laws governing the interaction of physical objects. He takes the route of Hume, and buys the riddle of induction. The only reason to believe that something will happen again is that it's happened before. But this is not knowledge, this is only supposition. Just because something happens repeatedly does not show that it will happen again. To know it will happen again, we must make a deductive proof, but this is impossible. These are his words on the theories of a scientist, "They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two somehow make up a comprehensible thing."
And so, it is not irrational to suppose that there is joy to be found in the mere fact that creation is continuing to exist, and that it is continuing to exist in a regular way. Looking at the world, again, with these eyes will enable us to see the world as a place that can bring us happiness.
The Mystery of God's Love
If we step back a bit and reevaluate all that I just said in this post thus far, it seems that fundamental fact I've belabored can be boiled down to something deeper: that it is God who desires our happiness and has done all to bring it about. If nature is moving to bring us happiness, it is because God has put it there and then pushed it in such a way that we can know it and find this joy.
But of course, now, like Chesterton, we have rediscovered Christianity. For didn't we damn ourselves in the beginning, when creation must have been the most wonderful? And didn't God condescend to earth and die for our redemption? Doesn't this show that God desires us to push us onto being what He has designed us to be? For the incarnation, atonement and resurrection provide eternal life, which in its weakest formulation is the avoidance of eternal pain, a major stumbling block towards finding happiness. But, really, we know that Eternal Life is much much more, it is the pursuit for eternity of happiness in the true wonder, God Himself. If nature is unpredictable, it is because there is an unknown God behind it that it is hinting at. And when in eternal glory, it will be God that we will be engaged in knowning. And this will be true bliss.
But, is God anthrocentric if the world is anthrocentric? Yes and no. This is the cosmological paradox portrayed by Dante. God both moves the world from the furthest sphere of heaven, and the cosmosrotates around God. For, though God seeks to make us happy, it is as an instrument to His own happiness. And this happiness He has never lacked. And here we have come upon a deeper mystery than the post has set out to answer, and so I have gone too far and will stop.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
This article" from the National Reveiew is an indispensable guide for the morality of the Terri Schiavo case.
It is an interview with Robert George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton, and authority on Natural Law. I highly recommend reading it.
It is an interview with Robert George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton, and authority on Natural Law. I highly recommend reading it.
Monday, March 21, 2005
This last weekend I had a retreat with the Knights, a group designed to help foster service and intentional community. It was a time to focus our energies and develop a strategy for the future. We also spent some time in solitude and small group kinds of discussions. Phil has posted a full collection of these pictures on his blog.
The real joy of the trip for me, though, was getting the heck out of the city again. It was an adventure to get there, and it was full of sublime beauty when we saw it.
The plan for the way out was to set up camp before dark came. Unfortunately, the earliest we could leave was 3:00. By leaving at 3, we hoped to make the 2 and a half hour drive with just enough time left to spare to set up a tent and get a fire going for the dark hours. Besides, where we were going was on dirt roads that I hadn't been on in years. This was not a trip to an established campsite somewhere with running water and bathrooms, but a journey to uninhabited wastes without any luxuries. We were going to rough it, and finding our campsite was going to be tough if we couldn't see where we were going.
A couple of things happened that shook all that up, though. First, it rained. Friday afternoon it began to rain in buckets, and while it tapered off as the day drew on, the freeways felt the angst of the dark weather. The other unplanned eventuality was Spring Break. Ours is next week, and it hadn't occured to me that every one else had it at a different time than us. Apparently enough people did, because we didn't get to camp 'till 9. And that means we didn't get to the dirt roads until it was very dark, and we wound our way through sand and mud to get there hesitantly. I was driving my dad's truck, but the other car was just a sedan, and sometimes it was a bit dicey getting it through the wet sand. But we made it fine and hastened to establish our camp in the cold drizzle. We lit our fire and gathered around it until around 10, and then went to bed.
The morning brought with it a shock. I sat up to look out on green plains stretching in every direction. This year's heavy rains covered the desert in green and flowers. I had never seen so much green in the desert before. There were little succulent green plants everywhere, temporarily filling the gaps between scrubby bushes and tumbleweed. In a few months, it will all be brown again, but right now it is full of life.
The other neat feature of this part of the desert was all lava field we were camped in. The hardened black outcroppings contrasted sharply with the soft green life, and in doing so really made it more beautiful. It's as if they were complementary colors. Oh, and the lava was not eroded so much that you couldn't still see the ancient swirls and ripples in its surface. You really had the sense, sometimes, of walking around on top of ancient rivers, and our imaginations jumped to imagine the times when the desert was filled with fire.
Another natural blessing of the trip was that it stopped raining Friday night, and so we enjoyed pleasant weather for all of Saturday and Sunday. The wind picked up Saturday night, but it still beat the rain. Unfortunately, we had planned on rain, and so we all got pretty sunburned.
To find where we camped, you take the 15 North to the 40 East. You get off of the 40 onto the 66 somewhere before you've gone 30 miles, and there are only a few places you can do this. I think the best one is Hector Road, because it takes you the furthest. About 32 miles from Barstow, you come to a road heading South following three rows of large utility towers. Driving along them, eventually you come to flat places in the lava where you camp. On the right of you, as you head south on the dirt road, is the Hector Mine, and to the left is 29 Palms Marine Base.
The real joy of the trip for me, though, was getting the heck out of the city again. It was an adventure to get there, and it was full of sublime beauty when we saw it.
The plan for the way out was to set up camp before dark came. Unfortunately, the earliest we could leave was 3:00. By leaving at 3, we hoped to make the 2 and a half hour drive with just enough time left to spare to set up a tent and get a fire going for the dark hours. Besides, where we were going was on dirt roads that I hadn't been on in years. This was not a trip to an established campsite somewhere with running water and bathrooms, but a journey to uninhabited wastes without any luxuries. We were going to rough it, and finding our campsite was going to be tough if we couldn't see where we were going.
A couple of things happened that shook all that up, though. First, it rained. Friday afternoon it began to rain in buckets, and while it tapered off as the day drew on, the freeways felt the angst of the dark weather. The other unplanned eventuality was Spring Break. Ours is next week, and it hadn't occured to me that every one else had it at a different time than us. Apparently enough people did, because we didn't get to camp 'till 9. And that means we didn't get to the dirt roads until it was very dark, and we wound our way through sand and mud to get there hesitantly. I was driving my dad's truck, but the other car was just a sedan, and sometimes it was a bit dicey getting it through the wet sand. But we made it fine and hastened to establish our camp in the cold drizzle. We lit our fire and gathered around it until around 10, and then went to bed.
The morning brought with it a shock. I sat up to look out on green plains stretching in every direction. This year's heavy rains covered the desert in green and flowers. I had never seen so much green in the desert before. There were little succulent green plants everywhere, temporarily filling the gaps between scrubby bushes and tumbleweed. In a few months, it will all be brown again, but right now it is full of life.
The other neat feature of this part of the desert was all lava field we were camped in. The hardened black outcroppings contrasted sharply with the soft green life, and in doing so really made it more beautiful. It's as if they were complementary colors. Oh, and the lava was not eroded so much that you couldn't still see the ancient swirls and ripples in its surface. You really had the sense, sometimes, of walking around on top of ancient rivers, and our imaginations jumped to imagine the times when the desert was filled with fire.
Another natural blessing of the trip was that it stopped raining Friday night, and so we enjoyed pleasant weather for all of Saturday and Sunday. The wind picked up Saturday night, but it still beat the rain. Unfortunately, we had planned on rain, and so we all got pretty sunburned.
To find where we camped, you take the 15 North to the 40 East. You get off of the 40 onto the 66 somewhere before you've gone 30 miles, and there are only a few places you can do this. I think the best one is Hector Road, because it takes you the furthest. About 32 miles from Barstow, you come to a road heading South following three rows of large utility towers. Driving along them, eventually you come to flat places in the lava where you camp. On the right of you, as you head south on the dirt road, is the Hector Mine, and to the left is 29 Palms Marine Base.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
I just talked with my younger brother, Phillip, on the phone this afternoon. He told me that he was chosen to go to Boys State this summer! It's a week long leadership program in June for high school Junior boys. It's like a mock-government thing. When they get there, they'll be divided into "cities" and they run for positions and such. His school, Calvary Chapel High School in Redlands, nominated 3 boys for this, but can only send one. One day last week, some men came to his school to interview the 3 boys separately. Phillip wore a suit and spoke with them about his views on flag burnings, which freedom he values the most, the importance of involvement in government and other related issues. And they liked him. So he gets to go--all expenses paid. I'm so proud of him; he's a good kid. And this is a great opportunity.
Gabe went to this when he was a Junior at the same high school. I have such cool brothers.
Gabe went to this when he was a Junior at the same high school. I have such cool brothers.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Happy St. Patrick's Day, everyone!
I foolishly forgot to wear any green this morning when I got ready. As I walked into the 2nd grade classroom where I'm doing some observation hours, I immediately realized my mistake. One boy, David, noticed right away that I was without any green. His eyes got really big and he started turning around to his friends saying, "Guys, Miss Libby isn't wearing green! We can pinch her!" Obviously, I get no respect from these kids. I solved the problem by using the Ellison cutter in the teacher's workroom to make a green-construction-paper-shamrock, and taping it on my shirt.
In other news: I taught them a lesson this morning on Adverbs. When the teacher told the class, "Miss Libby is going to teach you a lesson now, so I want you to all give her your full attention," they all started clapping for me as I walked to the front! It was pretty funny. Mrs. Ramos said, "Hey, how come you never clap for me?!"
The lesson itself went fairly well, I'd say. By the end, they seemed to have a pretty basic grasp of what an adverb is and how it can be used. There was still some confusion, and it was kind of hard for several of the students, but this was the first lesson they've ever had on adverbs so it was a new concept for them. It's comforting to know that they're going to get lots of practice with adverbs in the next couple of years. It's not as though I have to teach them everything about adverbs in my 35 minute lesson, and if they don't get it, I've ruined them for life. Mrs. Ramos said that she thought it was a good lesson and that it went well. So that was nice to hear.
I foolishly forgot to wear any green this morning when I got ready. As I walked into the 2nd grade classroom where I'm doing some observation hours, I immediately realized my mistake. One boy, David, noticed right away that I was without any green. His eyes got really big and he started turning around to his friends saying, "Guys, Miss Libby isn't wearing green! We can pinch her!" Obviously, I get no respect from these kids. I solved the problem by using the Ellison cutter in the teacher's workroom to make a green-construction-paper-shamrock, and taping it on my shirt.
In other news: I taught them a lesson this morning on Adverbs. When the teacher told the class, "Miss Libby is going to teach you a lesson now, so I want you to all give her your full attention," they all started clapping for me as I walked to the front! It was pretty funny. Mrs. Ramos said, "Hey, how come you never clap for me?!"
The lesson itself went fairly well, I'd say. By the end, they seemed to have a pretty basic grasp of what an adverb is and how it can be used. There was still some confusion, and it was kind of hard for several of the students, but this was the first lesson they've ever had on adverbs so it was a new concept for them. It's comforting to know that they're going to get lots of practice with adverbs in the next couple of years. It's not as though I have to teach them everything about adverbs in my 35 minute lesson, and if they don't get it, I've ruined them for life. Mrs. Ramos said that she thought it was a good lesson and that it went well. So that was nice to hear.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
This article from the Washington Post is an interesting perspective on what might be the first trickles of the dam of authoritarianism breaking in the Middle East. Let's hope so!
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Hiking on the Santa Rosa Plateau was a lot of fun. We hiked over 10 and a half miles, and saw the majority of the accessible reserve.
The park surprised me in the variety of wildlands that it possesses in a small area. Depending on the steepness and size of the hills, as well as what side of the hill you're walking on, the dominant vegetations vary wildly. There's prairie-land, chaparral, oak woodland, and coastal sage scrub, all within what seems a rediculously small area. Each of these biomes contains unique wildlife, too.
We definitely liked the prairie the most. It feels so wide open and free. I just get the feeling that the earth is friendly in a place like that. Tall grass, low hills, it's the most beautiful kind of carpeting possible. Areas like that are really special, and I'm glad we got to spend the day there out-of-doors.
The park surprised me in the variety of wildlands that it possesses in a small area. Depending on the steepness and size of the hills, as well as what side of the hill you're walking on, the dominant vegetations vary wildly. There's prairie-land, chaparral, oak woodland, and coastal sage scrub, all within what seems a rediculously small area. Each of these biomes contains unique wildlife, too.
We definitely liked the prairie the most. It feels so wide open and free. I just get the feeling that the earth is friendly in a place like that. Tall grass, low hills, it's the most beautiful kind of carpeting possible. Areas like that are really special, and I'm glad we got to spend the day there out-of-doors.
Jonathan and I went hiking at the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve yesterday. Here's a picture:
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Guys, this is great. I had no idea there were such specific names for groups of animals. Some of my favorites:
-A prickle of Porcupines
-A crash of Rhinoceroses
-An exaltation of Larks
-A gulp of Cormorants (that's a great one! very fitting--they'll just swallow fish whole)
-A parliament of Owls
-An unkindness of Ravens (can you imagine? "Woah, did you see that huge unkindness of Ravens fly overhead?!")
Who knew?!
-A prickle of Porcupines
-A crash of Rhinoceroses
-An exaltation of Larks
-A gulp of Cormorants (that's a great one! very fitting--they'll just swallow fish whole)
-A parliament of Owls
-An unkindness of Ravens (can you imagine? "Woah, did you see that huge unkindness of Ravens fly overhead?!")
Who knew?!
Monday, March 07, 2005
Shakespeare and the Dialectic
Shakespeare's style of writing is the most conducive to creating a dialectic that I think I've found. This stems from the complexity of his plays, and their power in drawing people into them.
Shakespeare has broad appeal, and he was so intelligent that he wrote characters that people would identify with because of the kind of people that they are. For example, Richard II is an idealist in Shakespeare's play (by the same name). His opponent, Henry Bolingbroke, is not. He is a pragmatist. Now, when I read Richard I thought, "This guy is so smart!" but people that I've been dialoguing with have the opposite reaction. "Richard is insane!"
If I try to convince someone that Richard is not insane, that will have to be done in a conversation, because there is no other way to effectively change their stirred intuitions. In fact, if I were to really want to convince them to believe me, I'd have to convince them that there is a deeper reality than we can see on the surface, and we'd start talking metaphysics. Shakespeare's text has created a dialect-pregnant situation.
I really appreciate the genius of a man who is able to do this, and, though I have never been taught this aspect of Shakespeare before, I think it may be his greatest accomplishment.
Shakespeare's style of writing is the most conducive to creating a dialectic that I think I've found. This stems from the complexity of his plays, and their power in drawing people into them.
Shakespeare has broad appeal, and he was so intelligent that he wrote characters that people would identify with because of the kind of people that they are. For example, Richard II is an idealist in Shakespeare's play (by the same name). His opponent, Henry Bolingbroke, is not. He is a pragmatist. Now, when I read Richard I thought, "This guy is so smart!" but people that I've been dialoguing with have the opposite reaction. "Richard is insane!"
If I try to convince someone that Richard is not insane, that will have to be done in a conversation, because there is no other way to effectively change their stirred intuitions. In fact, if I were to really want to convince them to believe me, I'd have to convince them that there is a deeper reality than we can see on the surface, and we'd start talking metaphysics. Shakespeare's text has created a dialect-pregnant situation.
I really appreciate the genius of a man who is able to do this, and, though I have never been taught this aspect of Shakespeare before, I think it may be his greatest accomplishment.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
I just started a new job a few days ago. I'm a marketing assistant for The Academy. I call high school students, who have been recommended by Biola, to see if they're interested in coming to our summer leadership conference. Basically, I'm a telemarketer. I try not to call during dinner time, but sometimes it can't be helped.
I made calls for about an hour and a half this afternoon and I think I got three people to apply. At least, these three students were very interested in it. So that's good. It's easier to keep making calls if it feels productive.
Most people are willing to hear about The Academy, especially since we only call students with a strong academic record. But I talked to one father who was pretty annoyed at my calling. I called him first a few days ago to talk to his daughter. I told him a little about it and asked if he thought that would be something his daughter would be interestd in. He was kind of short with me and said, "Well, I guess you'll have to call back and ask her." So, I called back today and he answered again. I asked to speak with his daughter, and he said she wasn't at home. Before I could ask what a better time to call would be, he said, "Oh-I-have-to-go. Bye" *click* Something tells me it won't do any good to call them back.
I suppose I deserve a little bit of that for some stuff I did to a telemarketer who kept calling my home a couple of years ago. Story time: During the interterm of sophomore year (January 2003), my parents were gone for several days; so Gabe and I were holding down the fort and making sure Phillip and Abbey didn't burn it down. Anyway, during this time, we started getting calls from some telemarketer guy. At first we would just tell him that our parents weren't available to come to the phone. But he kept calling back every day. Often twice a day. I mean, it got to the point where we recognized his voice as soon as he said, "Hello." So the four of us had a meeting. And we talked about some ideas of things to say when he called. Creative things. I don't remember all the stuff we came up with, but here are a couple that we actually went through with. All four of us contributed to these ideas, but I was the one who ended up talking with him...
Conversation 7(or so):
Telemarketer: Hello, may I speak with Thomas Moothart, please?
Me: He's grounded. He isn't allowed to talk on the phone.
T: Uh, I'd like to speak with Mr. Moothart. Is he your father?
Me: Yes, he's my father. He likes to set a good example for us kids, so when he does something wrong, he grounds himself. He can't watch TV; and he can't come to the phone. I'm sorry.
T: Wow. Ok, I'll try back later.
Conversation 8 (or so):
Telemarketer: Hello, may I speak with Thomas Moothart, please?
Me: (not disguising my voice at all) This is Thomas.
T: Uh, may I speak with Mr. Moothart, please?
Me: I'm Mr. Moothart.
T: Well, um...
Me: It's the voice, isn't it? I'm sick of it! Nobody ever believes that I'm a man over the phone! *click*
Yeah. I'm pretty sure I deserve anything I get during this new job.
I made calls for about an hour and a half this afternoon and I think I got three people to apply. At least, these three students were very interested in it. So that's good. It's easier to keep making calls if it feels productive.
Most people are willing to hear about The Academy, especially since we only call students with a strong academic record. But I talked to one father who was pretty annoyed at my calling. I called him first a few days ago to talk to his daughter. I told him a little about it and asked if he thought that would be something his daughter would be interestd in. He was kind of short with me and said, "Well, I guess you'll have to call back and ask her." So, I called back today and he answered again. I asked to speak with his daughter, and he said she wasn't at home. Before I could ask what a better time to call would be, he said, "Oh-I-have-to-go. Bye" *click* Something tells me it won't do any good to call them back.
I suppose I deserve a little bit of that for some stuff I did to a telemarketer who kept calling my home a couple of years ago. Story time: During the interterm of sophomore year (January 2003), my parents were gone for several days; so Gabe and I were holding down the fort and making sure Phillip and Abbey didn't burn it down. Anyway, during this time, we started getting calls from some telemarketer guy. At first we would just tell him that our parents weren't available to come to the phone. But he kept calling back every day. Often twice a day. I mean, it got to the point where we recognized his voice as soon as he said, "Hello." So the four of us had a meeting. And we talked about some ideas of things to say when he called. Creative things. I don't remember all the stuff we came up with, but here are a couple that we actually went through with. All four of us contributed to these ideas, but I was the one who ended up talking with him...
Conversation 7(or so):
Telemarketer: Hello, may I speak with Thomas Moothart, please?
Me: He's grounded. He isn't allowed to talk on the phone.
T: Uh, I'd like to speak with Mr. Moothart. Is he your father?
Me: Yes, he's my father. He likes to set a good example for us kids, so when he does something wrong, he grounds himself. He can't watch TV; and he can't come to the phone. I'm sorry.
T: Wow. Ok, I'll try back later.
Conversation 8 (or so):
Telemarketer: Hello, may I speak with Thomas Moothart, please?
Me: (not disguising my voice at all) This is Thomas.
T: Uh, may I speak with Mr. Moothart, please?
Me: I'm Mr. Moothart.
T: Well, um...
Me: It's the voice, isn't it? I'm sick of it! Nobody ever believes that I'm a man over the phone! *click*
Yeah. I'm pretty sure I deserve anything I get during this new job.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Hello, all.
I just wrote a little ditty on Augustine's disproof of astrology. I'd say it's a pretty clear cut argument.
Basically, there are cases where two people are born at the same time. This means that, if their lives are determined by the position of the stars at their birth, then they will have the same kind of life. In these cases, they didn't. So, astrology isn't true.
Another version of this argument that he puts forth is that of twins. Twins are born of the same mother, in some cases at almost exactly the same time (like Jacob and Esau). Yet they live very different lives! (like Jacob and Esau)
I am actually curious what the justification is for people who do ascribe to horoscopes. I can sort of understand the ancients believing in it, because they thought stars were self-moving movers. In other words, they thought they had souls. I think they thought this becuase there was no apparent cause for the regular motion of the heavens. This is because they thought the cause had to be present to the caused at all times. Anyway, if stars had souls I'd be more willing to believe they could influence things because soulish things have greater capacities for activity than non-soulish things. I hear tell some people still think stars have souls, but I haven't heard the arguments to support it, and obviously we can't accept the account that they demonstrate regular motion in the same way the ancients did, since the galaxy isn't earth-centered.
The other neat argument I read today in Augustine is about Genesis.
Basically, the argument is that for God to have created everything from nothing, it must not have been with a voice like the voice He spoke in the gospel "This is my son with whom I am well pleased" or with the voice like the one with which He spoke to Moses. Because, for His voice to be heard, it would have to be temporal, and time didn't exist until after He had spoken.
Which means that those Words must have been eternal in Him. And this corroborates John 1, in which it says about Jesus, "And the world was made through Him." Awesome, huh? The other thing he argues is that, in this read of Genesis, Beginning means the Word, which is nice because it seems to free us from temporal confusion, "What does in the beginning mean?, etc". So you could read Genesis this way:
"In the Word, God created the Heavens and the Earth."
It makes sense to me.
I just wrote a little ditty on Augustine's disproof of astrology. I'd say it's a pretty clear cut argument.
Basically, there are cases where two people are born at the same time. This means that, if their lives are determined by the position of the stars at their birth, then they will have the same kind of life. In these cases, they didn't. So, astrology isn't true.
Another version of this argument that he puts forth is that of twins. Twins are born of the same mother, in some cases at almost exactly the same time (like Jacob and Esau). Yet they live very different lives! (like Jacob and Esau)
I am actually curious what the justification is for people who do ascribe to horoscopes. I can sort of understand the ancients believing in it, because they thought stars were self-moving movers. In other words, they thought they had souls. I think they thought this becuase there was no apparent cause for the regular motion of the heavens. This is because they thought the cause had to be present to the caused at all times. Anyway, if stars had souls I'd be more willing to believe they could influence things because soulish things have greater capacities for activity than non-soulish things. I hear tell some people still think stars have souls, but I haven't heard the arguments to support it, and obviously we can't accept the account that they demonstrate regular motion in the same way the ancients did, since the galaxy isn't earth-centered.
The other neat argument I read today in Augustine is about Genesis.
Basically, the argument is that for God to have created everything from nothing, it must not have been with a voice like the voice He spoke in the gospel "This is my son with whom I am well pleased" or with the voice like the one with which He spoke to Moses. Because, for His voice to be heard, it would have to be temporal, and time didn't exist until after He had spoken.
Which means that those Words must have been eternal in Him. And this corroborates John 1, in which it says about Jesus, "And the world was made through Him." Awesome, huh? The other thing he argues is that, in this read of Genesis, Beginning means the Word, which is nice because it seems to free us from temporal confusion, "What does in the beginning mean?, etc". So you could read Genesis this way:
"In the Word, God created the Heavens and the Earth."
It makes sense to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)