I believe it was Bill Clinton who said something to the effect that we are living, and will spend our lifetimes, in the midst of the most diverse and drawn together world, ethnically, religiously, and culturally speaking, than any other time in history. It only makes sense, then, that the ways we react in this new time will end up defining, in large part, who we are as individuals and as innovators. And I’m finding that, lately, I find tolerance of pluralism to be one of the best traits a person can have.
-
-
Defining and categorizing has always seemed to be at once the simplest and most difficult thing imaginable. I especially enjoy Socrates discuss the topic in his dialogs. It’s interesting to see some (what seem to me to be) silly options tossed out to describe the way to think of a definition, and know that even today we struggle with the same issue, just later on in history.
-
I just had a man tell me that he is a finance major and as such shouldn’t have to deal with “this ethics or philosophy stuff.”
Dear God.
-
For Ethics, PL260, I am reading selections from a book called The Moral Life: an introductory reader in ethics and literature.Tonight’s essay was Ruth Benedict’s The Case for Moral Relativism. In it she argues for (duh) moral relativism, which is defined, by the book’s editor Louis P. Pojman, as:
…the theory that the validity of moral principles is dependant on cultural or subjective acceptance.
Louis P. Pojman, p. 151
Benedict in particular defends the idea that morals are determined by social systems and relies on what she calls “normal-abnormal categories” to do it. Normal categories would be the These are the distinctions made by societies that determine whether or not something is acceptable. Abnormal categories are the opposite.
In how far are such categories culturally determined, or in how far can we with assurance regard them as absolute? In how far can we regard inability to function socially as diagnostic of abnormality, or in how far is it necessary to regard this as a function of the culture?
Ruth Benedict, p. 152
This brings up the issue of absolute v. relative moral systems. I’m not yet convinced that these are the only two options.
No one civilization can possible utilize in its mores the whole potential range of human behavior. Just as there are great numbers of possible phonetic articulations, and the possibility of language depends on a selection and standardization of a few of those in order that speech communication may be possible at all, so the possibility of organized behavior of every sort…depends upon a similar selection among the possible behavior traits.
Ruth Benedict, p. 156
Obviously moral relativism throws a wrench into many modern interpretations of Christianity – or so they think. Most Christians don’t realize that their own faith is based on moral relativism, in essence. Think about it. What is right and wrong is not based on any absolute moral truth, but on whatever God says. That’s relativism.
Wild, right?
The very eyes with which we see the problem [of morality] are conditioned by the long traditional habits of our own society…
We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits. Mankind has always preferred to say, “It is morally good,” rather than “It is habitual,” and the fact of this preference is matter enough for a critical science of ethics. But historically the two phrases are synonymous.
Ruth Benedict, p. 157
Benedict shook me with that last line. Historically speaking, it probably is true. At the very least it rings true, in some sense. Doesn’t it?
Ruth Benedict was an American anthropologist who taught at Columbia University. She is best known for her book Patterns of Culture.
-
I had an interesting conversation earlier today with a friend of mine who is/was/has been skeptical of the idea and very existence of postmodernism. Although his reasoning is akin to those who would say things like “postmodernism is relativism” the conversation brought to light some ideas I’ve been mulling over for a while.
Continue reading… -
I don’t know if I would take the class again.
I learned some things and I was challenged by many things. There were times when it was very exciting and times when I wanted to die. Part of me wonders if this isn’t just going to be the very nature of philosophy; the other part wonders if it isn’t something else. Only time will tell.
Continue reading… -
There are a few other things on my mind that I would like to get out for a couple of reasons. First, I want to write all of my “God and Time” thoughts out before the end of the class and the final on Wednesday. Second, a number of interesting things were really synthesized in my mind earlier when I wrote an admittedly weak paper for class. But I suppose that’s what happens when you run so low on sleep your brain can’t act creatively anymore.
I would like to talk about omniscience (also the topic of my paper for class). The easiest way of jumping into the issue is to give the quote that had me thinking this direction as soon as I read it.
…There is no known univocal answer to what is essential for us being human…”
The quote comes from Thomas Senor in his essay “Incarnation, Timelessness, and Leibniz’s Law Problems”. He really struck me with this one. I immediate wrote in the margin: “If that is the case then why do we assume we know what it takes to be divine?” The emphasis in that sentence was on the why – which is an interesting topic – but I want to focus more on the what and the how.
-
The most exciting part of talking about God in relation to time (or any other thing for that matter) is when scripture or practical situations are taken into account. Today we read an essay today called “Incarnation, Timeless, and Leibnez’s Law Problems” by Thomas Senor. I found it very interesting – for the practical reason I already mentioned – as well as the fact that Senor lines up with many of my own beliefs; at the very least he hints at the fact.
What I would like to pay most attention to are the parts of his essay where he referenced and discussed the incarnation (that is, Christ becoming man on earth) and how we are to deal with this issue when considering the nature of time and (especially) omniscience.
-
We pray to God. Some of us do. Some of us could be much better than we are (speaking mainly to myself here). We also pray for a reason. Whatever the reason is, we base our prayers on the assumption that it is worth our time to pray. The point is we pray because we believe it makes a difference.
As the discussion in God and Time today showed, not all views of time really allow for any sort of meaningful prayer – at least not the way many of us think about it.
-
An illustration from my philosophy professor yesterday had me really excited (although it may have just been the 30 ounces of coffee in my system at the time. Don’t ask.)
Background: we have been reading a variety of essays this week by philosophical theologians arguing for an atemporal God. There have been different ways of going about it, but the basic illustration stays the same. Think of time as a line (a timeline) on which events in our time take place. Then there is God, removed from time, and (depending on the particular philosopher) still able to act in and on our timeline. But God cannot be seen as having his own seperate timeline – God does not experience time.
-
Another student in class brought up something which we covered a day or so ago, that is that God is immutable (for argument’s sake) because His changing in any way would either mean (1) that He is becoming more perfect and thus wasn’t perfect before the change or (2) that He was perfect and is changing from His current perfect state. The proponent of immutability is going to use this to show that God mustn’t change or else God cannot be perfect.
Continue reading… -
God and Time is a lot to chew on. The bright side is that there are plenty of slightly off track comments and questions to keep the conversation trailing and away from the reading material for the day’s class. Unfortunately the down side is that there are plenty of slightly off track comments and questions to keep the conversation trailing and away from the reading material for the day’s class.
Funny how that works, eh?