Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

The follow text is from a previous post entitled, “Dependence Day:”

I’ll be honest. I’m not a fan of Independence Day. I’m trying to sort through whether that opinion is fueled by the despicable taste in in my mouth when I see red, white, and blue waving as a symbol of national allegiance and empire worship or simply by my struggle to intellectually and philosophically value independence. Freedom is good and necessary but cannot exist through the supposed provision of an earthly empire. Freedom is in the person of Jesus Christ and is quite different from that with which it is quite often confused, “rights.”

My reading on July 3rd proved to be rather timely for the upcoming day celebrated by most citizens of the United States. From Free of Charge by Miroslav Volf:

“Here is roughly how sin works in relation to God the giver. All things are from God and through God, and yet we want to be independent of God, standing on our own two feet, claiming God’s gifts as our own achievement. The young Karl Marx, barely twenty-six years old, put this sentiment as boldly as possible. In a text that remained unpublished during his lifetime, ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts,’ he gave an expression to the heart of his rebellion against God:

‘A being only counts itself as independent when it stands on its own feet and it stands on its own feet as long as it owes its existence to itself. A man who lives by grace of another considers himself a dependent being. But I live completely by grace of another when I owe him not only the maintenance of my life but when he has also created my life, when he is the source of my life. And my life has necessarily such a ground outside itself if it is not my own creation.’

Marx held firmly to human independence. It almost seemed to him a value that lies at the bottom of all values. Because the reality of God as creator is incompatible with human independence, he denied the existence of God.

Most of us, especially the believers among us, won’t deny God’s existence in order to secure our independence. Instead, we think that we can have it both ways. We believe that we can stand on our own two feet, independent of God, and still affirm that God is the creator of everything. But that doesn’t make sense. We can be both dependent on God and free; dependence on God is the source of our being, and therefore, our freedom. But we can’t be created by God and independent; God sustains creatures in being and in freedom. When we assert our independence, when we ascribe to ourselves what comes from God, we wrong God – at least as much as I would wrong an author whose ideas I would peddle as my own. That’s our main sin against God the giver. If, like Raleigh Hays, we see ourselves as more or less honest, hardworking citizens, we may believe that we deserve what we have, and even a bit more because an evil world is cheating us of our proper reward. We might not feel particularly grateful for what we have because we think that, rather than receiving it, we earned it. And we want to dispose of our hard-earned goods the way we please; they become not so much gifts given to us to enjoy and pass on, but rather our exclusive possessions.

Assertion of independence, pride of achievement, sense of entitlement, and absolute right to dispose with our goods – these are the ways in which we live in contradiction to who we actually are in relation to God. And in these ways, we, decent citizens, live as inveterate sinners. To live in sync with who we truly are means to recognize that we are dependent on God for our very breath and are graced with many good things; it means to be grateful to the giver and attentive to the purpose for which the gifts are given.” //

// Miroslav Volf. Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. pp. 35-6.

Leonardo, Michaelangelo, and Donatello, make up the group with one other fellow…

Raphael. The creator of the image above which depicts Plato and Aristotle and their differing philosophy of theology or theology of philosophy. I find myself trapped between the two yet find freedom in the person of Jesus. Sometimes I need freedom from my intellect.

From what do you need freedom?

I have read a number of articles about using a reader in order to keep up with blog content when wanting to read numerous blogs. Tyler Braun wrote about using Google Reader. I think if I were to use a reader it would be one from Google since they, in conjunction with Apple, do in fact run the universe (by which I mean, if Google and Apple didn’t exist there would be a cosmic implosion causing all things to move to a higher state of order which is simply unacceptable and perfectly acceptable in the postmodern era).^ I have elected, however, to avoid using a reader. Part of the blogging and blog reading experience extends well beyond the content hammered out on a keyboard. A reader delivers the content of individual posts but does not capture the fullness of a blog. Many bloggers spend hours designing layouts, color schemes, and headers (or is that just me) in order to 1) provide the reader with a pleasant and artistically engaged online experience; and 2) offer content and links that enhance the message of the written material. Unless Google’s Reader has a content feature that I have yet to explore I would suggest that one simply use the bookmarking and RSS features found in internet browsers in order to directly visit the sites about which you care. Appreciate the art. Appreciate the feel. Don’t just read it. Experience it.

^ For those needing explanation due to the sarcastic language concerning existentialism, postmodernism, and theology(ism), I may write another post with a more modernly-toned explanation.

I have had my Twitter account for a while now. At first I hardly ever used it except with a few international friends or those who are "with it" enough in the states to "tweet." I am excited that more people are now tweeting. A little birdy (ok, that was too far; not funny) told me that Twitter is the new Facebook, a name which continues to bother me since the application is not a book at all. The funniest thing about Twitter is that I have "followers." Now I really have a messianic complex since I feel like a first century rabbi in Israel. I’m not sure if I want to call my followers my "Tweeps" or my "Tweeple." Both terms are tossed around the Twitterverse so as to signify that one is "with it" when it comes to using the "with it" online connectivity tool.

What does it mean to be "with it?"

If you would like to follow me [and thereby know where I am and what I'm doing at all times (yes, i know... captivating and irresistible)] then please click the link to the right (it’s the one that says "Twitter"). Come, follow me… and I will make you ____________________.

I’m taking out for lunch or dinner whoever fills in the blank with the most creative and funniest response. Click on the comments to add your… comment.

I had the pleasure of meeting with Dan Merchant briefly this evening at the ACSD conference. Dan is the writer/director/producer of the documentary, “LORD, save us from your followers.” I also attended the viewing of the film. I was entertained, confronted, and reaffirmed all at the same time. I am definitely going to be purchasing the film and hosting a screening as a part of the film forum of Oakwood Hall. I will also be meeting with Dan hoping that he may visit our community at Mount Vernon Nazarene University.

The following trailer is somewhat vague and does not come close to providing a full representation of the movie. Please visit the website to watch more video clips and read more information.

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=ihvf4ClxLLA]

The following is a thought I posted for my Premodern, Modern, and Postmodern Philosophy course:

Our current “normal sense of community” is actually quite individualistic. Much “dialogue” is actually “monologue” when one person conversing merely desires his/her opinion to be heard and acted upon rather than both parties seeking mutual understanding to consider the validity of multiple persons’ claims and thoughts within conversation. “Communitas” rests in thought that seeks to dissipate one’s individualism for the sake of genuine dialogue. In order to engange in the exchange of thought each one involved in the conversation must view himself/herself not as an individual with rights and truth claims but rather as a member of a group who contributes and receives simultaneously resulting in community.

To seek one’s own individual desires is contrary to the biblical concept of the Church. The self must be an element that is secondary to the well-being of the community. Seeking “communitas” is the process of enacting love for one’s neighbor. Acting and conversing for the good of the neighbor and consequently the good of the community is the demonstration given by Jesus through his incarnation. When “communitas” is in process then love is being made complete.

Due to the potentially argumentative nature of speech, the concept of dialogue in “communitas” must exceed verbal expression. The sharing of life and ideas in a loving manner is more appropriately handled experientially.

In order to create a “commons” in my current context of community I would experiment with social engagement. I would approach dialogue with contemporaries in a manner that incorporates mutual questioning and service. Questioning would involve ministry partners seeking dialogue beyond ourselves and asking questions to others to sincerely receive and consider their perspective. By doing so the concept of “us/them” transforms to an understanding of “us.” The hope would be that conversation would promote and initiate mutual service of giving to and receiving from each other. Experimentation with active service that seeks social justice creates a common missional perspective that is the very essence of the Church.

If everything is spiritual then nothing is spiritual because nothing is by its own existence something and therefore has to be part of everything. To say that nothing is spiritual is to affirm to a greater degree that everything is indeed spiritual.

The actually title of this post is:
“Geometric Philosophy (and the theological implications therein; as if there can’t be theological implications)”
I didn’t have a very good geometry teacher in high school. In fact, my best friend and I sometimes actually taught the class. Geometry and philosophy are things that have always just “clicked” for me.
There is a somewhat commonly used phrase cited as, “It (meaning something) comes full circle.” Can something really “come full circle?” What does that even mean? If a circle is not a full circle then it is not even a circle at all. A not full circle would be an arc (not to be confused with anything involving Joan, the Covenant, or Noah). The entire concept of a circle, however, may only be accepted if one presumes that an infinite number of points between two other points can proceed infinitely to connect with yet another point.
Confused? Try to understand God.

Can arrogance be equated with speech or an action that is one’s own claim of his/her authority? In other words, is it “the pot calling the kettle black” for someone to tell another that he/she is arrogant?

Can an arrogant person admit his/her own arrogance? If so, then isn’t his/her own admittance arrogant because he/she views himself/herself as authoritative enough to make that decision?