Reflection

Who's Bo, and why are you telling him to eat this?: An Analysis of Boethius' "The Consolation of Philosophy"

In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius uses a dialogue between himself and the personification of Philosophy to assuage his sufferings. Philosophy describes the various ways people pursue happiness and how they are incapable of producing true happiness on their own. This opens the door for explaining that the ultimate good comes from God. Although this is not explicitly Christian, and makes no references to scripture, Boethius’ portrayal of Philosophy uses Christian themes. Boethius’ work, The Consolation of Philosophy, can be considered a Christian work because it uses human reason to point to God.

Boethius makes several references to God, which, because of his Christian background, can be interpreted as references to the God of Christianity. For example, he says that “There is one Father of all things; One alone provides for all” (Boethius 47) in Poem 6. This aligns with the Christian belief that, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Both indicate that God alone made the universe. He then goes on to reference Plato by saying, “He clothed with bodies the souls he brought from heaven” (Boethius 47). This emphasizes that the human mind also comes from God, as well as being reminiscent of Plato. In the Timaeus, Plato describes the souls as coming from stars and being “implanted” into bodies.  By following a “Biblical” idea by a philosophical idea, Boethius strengthens the connection between Christianity and philosophy.

Boethius also uses philosophy to arrive at Biblical conclusions. From the beginning of Book 3, he discusses how the various ways men attempt to purse happiness are incapable of producing true happiness. They all create needs instead of solving them. The idea that true contentment and happiness comes from God is a common theme among Christian writers. Recall when St. Augustine says, “Because God has made us for himself, our hearts are restless until they rest in him:” (Augustine). Furthermore, Boethius uses the pursuit of happiness as a philosophical avenue to arrive at morals given in the Bible. The grounds given are that the vices cannot produce happiness, or the ultimate good. He then says that for this reason, the pursuits of men often do more harm than good. One example he gives is the pursuit of bodily pleasures. They eventually can produce vices such as gluttony and sexual immorality. Rather than saying outright to avoid these sins because they are abhorred by God, Boethius explains that the overarching theme, pursuit of bodily pleasure, will not produce happiness. Since he sees happiness as stemming from God, it can be determined that obsessively pursuing bodily pleasures is not of God. In a rather roundabout way, he has arrived at conclusions that are similar to the Bible.

This roundabout method was human reason. Since many people happen to regularly employ their reason, it is beneficial if their religious beliefs do not contradict it in several key points. God gave humans brains when he created life; perhaps he intended for humans to use them. If God created reason, then it should follow that reason points back to God. Since Boethius uses reason to arrive at characteristics of God, then The Consolation of Philosophy has a place among other non-scriptural Christian texts.

The Summer Saint: Reflections on St. Augustine

St. Augustine of Hippo was a very intelligent man, and his Confessions offers insights into this intelligence. His book is a rather enjoyable read, for both diction and ideas. After reading chapters 2-3 of Confessions, there are a couple of points that stand out. Specifically, his explanation of the vices was very interesting. More generally, his view on education also give cause for reflection.

At the bottom of page 38, and the top of page 39, Augustine begins describing how, “Vice always fall short of its aim” (Augustine 38). Augustine makes a very viable claim here. He displays, through glorious diction, that every vice seeks to make man something that only God can truly embody. For example, he states that “Ambition seeks nothing but honours and glory, whereas you alone are worthy of honour above all things, and your glory endures for ever” (Augustine 38). Men with ambition want prestige, but they often forget that any “honors” they acquire are insignificant and meaningless compared to the infinite glory of God. This is a wonderful truth, and yet so easy to forget. So are the truths described by Augustine in this section. Although these truths are easy to forget, Augustine’s method of describing these truths causes them to become profound again. His diction calls attention to the glory of God, by first describing the “vice” and then contrasting it to the Godly equivalent.

              In Book 2 of his Confessions, St. Augustine describes his descent into immorality during his adolescence. He explains that his education focused on making him intelligent rather than encouraging his morals. He describes how he began to enjoy sin for the sake of sin, and recalls an instance of stealing pears for the pleasure of doing something wrong. The implications here are that a classical education alone does not provide morals. This is in contrast to Plato’s proposition that good philosopher-kings simply require education. Plato believes that education instills morals, while Augustine asserts that his education damaged his soul more than corrected it. How are these views to be reconciled?

              Perhaps Augustine’s education did not follow the format prescribed by Plato. It is possible that Augustine’s teachers were themselves immoral, and this influenced Augustine to take a bad turn. That is not to say that Augustine was unintelligent and incapable of deciding his own views, but the influence of teachers and peers should not be discounted. C.S. Lewis says something that may shed some light on this subject. He says that, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil” (Lewis, The Abolition of Man). Thus, education can be either good or bad depending on if values are instilled. So when Plato says that education makes a man good, the education process must teach good values as well as mathematics and astronomy. Therefore, Augustine’s education must have been education without virtue, for he certainly describes himself as simply a ‘more clever devil’ as a result of his education. According to Augustine, his teachers did not care what he was arguing for, so long as he argued well. To some extent, it is good for teachers to allow students to think what they want so long as they express it well. However, as Aristotle says, this must not go to the extreme. Education can be good if it teaches how to care for your fellow man, as well as how to debate him.

Serious Stuff

In The Holy Rule of St. Benedict, St. Benedict makes remarks on laughter. In Chapter IV, he says, “. . . not to speak useless words and such as provoke laughter” (Benedict 8). Words that “provoke laughter” are typically jokes. So, Benedict here appears to be banning humor. Any person that enjoys a good laugh likely disagrees with this rule. However, after pausing to think about it, there are several potential reasons for its existence.

The grounds for the establishment of this rule are hazy compared to the other rules in the book. Many maxims are supported with a corresponding scripture, while this order to not joke appears to be in opposition to scripture. It is written in Proverbs, “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine” (Proverbs 17:22 KJV), and humor tends to either produce or be a by-product of a cheerful heart. If a merry heart is good, then why does St. Benedict veto the jokes? It is unlikely that St. Benedict made this rule arbitrarily; there was most likely a reason.

This rule was presumably enforced in some monasteries, if only the monastery of which St. Benedict was abbot. This is purely guesswork, but perhaps in St. Benedict’s monastery there were problems related to joking. Therefore, St. Benedict found it best to abstain from joking altogether. However, this is only guesswork.

Even if there was not a specific issue with joking in the monastery, there are certain types of joking that are not necessarily beneficial. For example, the Bible warns against coarse joking. (Ephesians 5:4). Furthermore, laughter can easily become slanderous. An illustration of this occurs in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. In the book, after Mr. Darcy comments on the beauty of Elizabeth’s eyes, a jealous Miss Bingley responds with “. . . witticisms on fine eyes” (Austen, Chapter 9). This is an example of humor being used the wrong way. In this example, Miss Bingley attempts to use her wit to conceal her jealousy. Obviously, humor of this sort has no place in a society dedicated to God.

Humor can be used to disguise many things, not just the jealousy of a certain Miss Bingley. The Proverbs say that, “Even in laughter the heart may ache, and rejoicing may end in grief.” (Proverbs 14:13, NIV). Laughter cannot fix a broken heart, but can perhaps disguise it. Humor can then be used to distract the mind from serious problems. This may not be a bad thing, but in excess can pose some issues. Using laughter to artificially prop up mood, rather than having a cheerful heart stemming from God, is not good. A person can become accustomed to being fed humorous anecdotes like a morphine drip.

One of the main points of being in a monastery is to reflect. So it is understandable that something distracting- even a good joke- is eliminated. Later in the text Benedict says that “a monk (should not be) easily moved and quick for laughter” (Benedict 14). He then quotes something called the Sirach, which says that, “The fool exalteth his voice in laughter” (Sirach 21:23). This may be a bit on the extreme end. There is nothing wrong with a good joke. However, it is wise to remember that not all humor is good, and as it is written in Lamentations, there is a time for everything, even a time to laugh (Ecclesiastes 3:4).

Much of what St. Benedict says is good stuff. However, it is boring to listen to a list of things I agree with, so I will now turn to a passage that I did not agree with. In Chapter LXIX, there is a short rule that says “that on no occasion (should) one monk try to defend another in the monastery, or to take his part,” (Benedict 77). This raises the question: why? Obviously, as mentioned earlier, there was presumable a reason for this rule. It is possible that monks could band together and cause various sorts of strife between brethren. However, if person A is giving false testimony against person B, and person C is a witness, why can person C not give a defense of person B? Did not Moses plead before God for the Israelites? Why, then, can a monk not plead for his fellow monk before the abbot? Hopefully there were not murder mysteries happening in the monastery, but regardless this rule is still bothersome. It would be helpful if Benedict had penned more than just a paragraph on the subject. More explanation would have been helpful for understanding this rule.

THE QUR'AN!

In the 57^th surah of the Qu’ran, many of the moral teachings present are comparable to the teachings of the Bible. For example, the first six verses describe the sovereignty and all-knowingness of God.  Although the exact wording may be different from that of the Bible, the idea is the same. God is all-knowing, God is sovereign. Another instance of similarity is when it says, “. . . but then it withers, and thou canst see it turn yellow; and in the end it crumbles into dust” (Surah 57). This is very similar to the verse in Genesis, when God says, “To dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19). Again, the metaphor is similar. Man is mortal, and eventually decomposes. However, not every piece of the Qur’an directly relates to the Bible, and many portions are in direct contrast.

In the 58^th surah, there is a portion that warns against befriending those “people whom God has condemned” (Surah 58). The text explains that those who reject God are the condemned ones. Let us now examine how this compares to the Bible. The second main assertion, that rejecting God in life leads to condemnation is certainly present in the Bible. The first point is more difficult to find. Something similar is said in the Old Testament, where God commands the Israelite not to “. . . intermarry with them (other nations) because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods” (1 Kings 11:2). This is similar to what is described in the Qur’an; though marriage and friendship are slightly different relationships. The main reason for the Israelites to avoid non-Israelites is to avoid temptation. This may not be the reasoning the Qur’an uses, so an examination of the context shall be required. Although only a relatively small sample of the book is available to provide said context, there is likely enough for accurate conclusions to be drawn.

In the passage in question (Surah 58:14-22), it is important to note that the main idea is a description of God’s coming wrath to those condemned. The last paragraph describes he coming glory for God’s followers, but otherwise the passage centers on wrath. There is no mention of the temptation that comes with befriending such people, it is instead implied (as far as I can tell) that because a person rejects God, it is a defilement to associate with them. This implication is strongly disputed by the Bible, which teaches to love neighbors and enemies (Mark 12:31, Matthew 5:44). There are no conditions given for this love, while the Qur’an indicates conditional love. Therefore, there is only a slight convergence here between the Qur’an and the Bible. For different reasons, and at different times, the followers of either texts are to avoid familiar relationships for those who reject God.

There are many elements of the Qur’an that display Bible-esque qualities. However not every aspect is comparable to the Bible. One instance of this occurs in the 60^th surah, which says that it is not forbidden to show kindness to unbelievers that do not persecute members of Islam, because God loves people that behave fairly (Surah 60). This instance implies several points that are contrary to biblical tradition. One of the large differences is that kindness to unbelievers is only ‘not forbidden’ when the unbeliever is not an enemy to the believer. This is contrary to the aforementioned biblical teaching of loving enemies (Matthew 5:44). The other main difference is that there is an implied limit to God’s love. God appears to love believers and those that behave nicely towards them. This indicates that God is out of patience with evil people, and that God’s love can be earned. This is in contrast to the classic go-to of John 3:16 as well as Romans 5:8. Both indicate that God loved the entirety of fallen humanity (no decency required) and therefore made salvation an option for anyone so desiring it. This portion of the surah is in clear contrast to biblical principles.

NOTE: I wasn’t sure how to cite the Qur’an, so for specific verses I used the Surah number, colon, and then the number given in the squiggly parentheses things.

Herbal Essences: A Response to St. Basil

In his work, “Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature,” St. Basil explains that the reader should study Greek works that extol virtue. One of the reasons for this is that we “. . . first accustom ourselves to the sun’s reflection in the water, and then become able to turn our eyes upon the very sun itself” (Basil.) Basil believes that people can learn virtue and how to think deeply through Pagan literature. This then enhances the spiritual life of the Christian. I find that the reasons for this are twofold. First, there is the practical reason extolled by standardized tests: reading works of literature improves general reading comprehension. This enables the educated Christian to read scripture and understand what it says. Obviously, it is difficult to get around to doing what the scriptures say if a person is unable to tackle figurative language, paragraph-long sentences, and large words.

The next reason Pagan literature is beneficial to the Christian is that it oftentimes displays Christian virtue. If a myth displays instances of courage, honor, and other noble causes, then it is beneficial to read. Furthermore, while teaching virtue, Greek literature naturally reflects Christianity. C.S. Lewis explains that Christianity is in many ways a “true myth” and that, “. . . the pagan stories are God expressing himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He formed there, while Christianity is God expressing himself through what we call ‘real things’” (Lewis). When the pagan writers wish to write something truly beautiful, they perhaps unavoidably instill virtue. Lewis indicates that not only do pagan writers instill virtue, but they also echo Christian themes. It makes sense that anything beautiful humankind creates is a reflection of the beauty of humankind’s Creator. In in his letter to the Colossians, Paul writes that religious festivals and rituals were, “. . . a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:17.) Although Paul is here speaking of Jewish traditions, is it not possible that certain Greek writings can also be reminiscent of Christian themes? If pagan writings remind the reader of Christianity, then they may naturally also aid in better understanding Christianity. Therefore, Pagan literature that reminds of Christianity is beneficial.

Later in the text, St. Basil makes some comments on health. He says that, “. . . I have even heard physicians say that over-healthiness is dangerous” (Basil.) This is to emphasize his point that being overly healthy can be just as bad as being over-indulgent. Though his exact phrasing is questionable, (over-healthiness is dangerous to health?) he is quite right in insinuating that obsession with physical health can harm spiritual health and the ability to think deeply. By becoming especially fit, a person is in danger of idolizing their body. (Recall the myth of Narcissus.) The person obsessed with fitness begins to place more value in the physical world, and has another reason to be prideful. Next, the person becomes so mired in the physical world that they can begin to forget that they are mortal. They can become so obsessed that their entire life revolves around training, and they spend excessive amounts of time and energy devoted to the perfect diet. That’s not to say that washboard abs are the root of all evil. In general, though, it is not beneficial to spend every waking thought devoted to health, just as it is frowned upon to spend hours a day eating twinkies. Six-pack obsessions, whether of the consumable or abdominal variety, are not the best way to spend the majority of time.

Sources:

The Bible (NIV)

C.S. Lewis “Letter to Arthur Greeves on the myth of Christianity”

Row, man!

             In Romans, Paul spends a large portion of the book discussing aspects of Jews and Jewish history. Why does Paul do this in a letter to a Roman church? There must have been a reason; the most obvious explanation is that the Romans needed to hear it. One indication that the Romans could make use of information on Jews comes from the Brown reading, which explains that most religions’ understanding of other religions was “. . . partial, inaccurate, and even prejudiced” (Brown 1). Perhaps one of Paul’s purposes here is to address any misinformation about Judaism that may have been present in Rome. Another clue comes from Paul’s repeated admonishment of Jewish superiority. Paul explains in chapter two that inward understanding and observance of God’s law is greater than observing various religious laws and customs. Based on this, perhaps Paul was also addressing Jewish-Christians that were in danger of being prideful because of their Jewish heritage. The initial question of why Paul writes at length about Judaism leads to a further examination of these passages. This more in-depth look reveals further quandaries about the precise meaning of what Paul says.

              Many parts of Paul’s writings on the Jewish/gentile matter are easy to understand and rather comforting to the gentile reader. For example, one of Paul’s main ideas is that anyone who confesses and believes will be saved because God does not show favoritism. Any gentile, Roman or not, is very happy to hear that. However, Paul also makes statements that are seemingly contradictory to the idea of God’s unbiased love and mercy. One of the biggest statements is a reference to Exodus, where Paul explains that God hardens some (like Pharaoh) and shows mercy to others. The idea that God causes some to harden their hearts against him was bothersome at the beginning of the semester, and is still bothersome when revisited now.

Although there is no obvious, new revelation on the troublesome Pharaoh incident here, it is interesting to note that Paul specifically says that the Pharaoh incident is proof of God’s justice. The remainder of chapter nine is troublesome as well. Paul says that humans are dependent on God’s mercy, and have no right to complain because God is the creator and the humans were created. Therefore, God has the right to make “. . .some. . . for noble purposes and some for common use” (Romans 9:21). This alone is not particularly troublesome; it could just be a reference to the ‘body of Christ’ metaphor. However, it is immediately followed with, “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath- prepared for destruction?” (Romans 9:22). Now, since Paul wrote this as a question, perhaps this statement can be disregarded. However, Paul was also a God-inspired author and should not just be brushed aside because he says something that is hard to understand. 

              It would seem that God chooses to show mercy to some, and some he chooses to use to show his wrath. However, many other portions of the bible emphasize God’s great love for humanity, like in II Peter when it says, “Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (II Peter 3:9). This shows a different side of God’s patience that contrasts with the patience described in Romans 9. Perhaps, based on this, God is patient with the objects of his wrath so that they may eventually be saved. Furthermore, God created each with different personalities. Therefore, perhaps it is easier for some to accept Christ than others. This would not mean that God shows favoritism, but rather that God is creative and makes everybody different. So when those that are stubborn or more naturally rejecting of God decide to follow him, his glory is shown.

              To be honest, I have no idea what I’m talking about here. In conclusion, I know that God is ultimately good and loves humans. The scriptures back this time and again. So although I do not have all of the answers, and some things about the bible are hard to understand, I am alright with that. That’s not to say I will not think about these things though.

LET'S GET READY TO CONFUCIUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

One of the largest differences between Confucius and the Greek philosophers is the approach to relationships. Confucius’ ethics are deeply rooted in family and having proper relationships. According to Confucius, understanding oneself leads to having proper relationships with family, friends, and authority. The governor of the people, then, must have the proper relationships between a governor, his subjects, and other princes. This contrasts to Aristotle, who sees a good family solely as one of the contributors to happiness. He does emphasize proper relationships to others, rather morality stems from proper actions towards the fellow man. However, Aristotle may argue that living an ethical life between the two extremes produces proper relationships as a by-product. Regardless, Aristotle does not emphasize relationship and does not see proper relationships as something to be pursued. In further contrast to Confucius, Plato’s ethics are almost entirely individualistic and knowledge based.  He sees governing as the duty of the educated man rather than a relationship between ruler and people.

Confucius’ focus on having the proper relationships seems confining at times. For example, he praises the son that finishes his father’s work. He also supports paying homage to ancestors and the elderly. First, for the difficulties with finishing the work of the father. I believe in the context of the passage, he means this mostly in the sense of a prince completing the work of the previous king. Practically speaking, by continuing the father’s work is much more efficient than scrapping everything and starting over. Otherwise, there would be halfway finished public works all over the place. Confucius then goes even further, saying that the traditions of the ancestors should be kept by the younger generation. This is very from modern Western culture, which has seen a cultural transformation in the last 100 years. I am uncertain here if Confucius meant that the inheriting leader should keep the traditions of his father, or if the common man should keep traditions in order to keep proper relationships with their elders and ancestors. If this is meant for the leader of the people, it is again very practical teaching. Attempting to change beloved traditions of a people is not the best way to gain their support.

However, he may also be speaking to people in a general sense when he says that the well-bred man keeps the traditions of this father. If that is the case, then Confucius believes proper relationships with elders and ancestors means to keep the traditions of the past, even to the extent of listening to the same music. (For real: see XIX 5). Obviously, this is very different than the predominant culture of modern America, where music only two years old is obsolete and considered a throwback. Western culture values individualism and freedom, chafing at the attempts of tradition to constrain things.

However, since everything we are is built on the past, perhaps Confucius’ points should not be immediately dismissed. For example, in the study of mathematics, it is highly improbable (pun intended) that a person would be able to invent the real number system, arithmetic, algebra, probability, geometry, and calculus in a single lifetime. (There is probably a limit to our singular knowledge even if given infinite time.) Math began with the counting numbers, and each generation of mathematicians has built on the foundation of their predecessors. Similarly, what we are is a direct result of our past, our family’s past, and the whole of the human history. How can people build if they do not know what they are building on? How can people employ sine and cosine functions if they do not know what angles are?

This is why understanding the past is so important. We pay homage to our ancestors by understanding them. Although I may not go to the extent recommended by Confucius, having a proper relationship with the past is vital to building a future. Perhaps Confucius believes that keeping the traditions of our ancestors is how the past is best understood and respected. As aforesaid, this is in contrast to American individualism. In my opinion, neither should be completely disregarded; there should instead be a relationship between tradition and innovation. Aristotle would probably be pleased if we avoided the extremes of tradition vs. change, and Confucius would probably like having a proper relationship between the two. Plato, however, would just be annoyed that we are not discussing mathematics.

Analyzing Aristotle: An Examination of his Ethics

In Books I and II of his work, The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes happiness as the ultimate end to good. His next step is to define happiness. Interestingly, he does not consider happiness a mere emotion. Rather, Aristotle believes it comes after a lifetime of living virtuously and being lucky. He does admit, however, that happiness means different things to different people. Though according to his main definition, children cannot be happy. This is a strange thing to say, considering the modern belief that children are happier than adults. Although the modern definition of happiness varies with Aristotle’s, modern thought is not entirely wrong here. Happiness is not limited to people that have lived long, virtuous, and fortunate lives. In older people, happiness can stem from these qualities. In children, happiness is more dependent on mood and parental love. That does not mean children cannot be happy; children are very capable of virtue. How many times have children been heard to say, “That’s not fair!”? Furthermore, Aristotle stresses the importance of understanding the underlying spirit of virtue. Therefore, although many children may not understand an in-depth analysis of right and wrong, it does not follow that they are incapable of perceiving the spirit of right and wrong, and therefore the spirit of virtue.

Aristotle’s talk of happiness raises a question for Christians: is happiness possible without God? Well, it is possible to be fairly virtuous and to have a clear conscience, which Aristotle says is the main precursor. Then, after that, if a person is fortunate they will have friends and family that they care about. After all of this, maybe the person will be happy. However, even when everything is right in a person’s world, and the world of their closest friends, there is still a void that only God can fill. One of the reasons for this is because if a person is virtuous, which Aristotle says results in happiness, that person would realize the disparity in the world and would be bothered by it. Aristotle lists justice as a virtue, so a just person would be pained by injustice in the world. How, then, is the pain felt as a result of virtue transformed into happiness? Is the righteous person supposed to care just enough to be virtuous, but not so much that their happiness is unaffected? Aristotle suggests that happiness is not an emotion. Logic, though, insists that the emotions must be at peace in order for happiness to occur. Perhaps Aristotle believes that by being virtuous people will be ‘doing their part’ for the poor, friendless, less fortunate, etc. After doing this, perhaps their compassion is reconciled.

Furthermore, the weight of the entire world is not our burden to bear. Without God, virtue demands that the virtuous person behave like God, because there are serious problems in the world that need to be fixed. This is an impossible task that will only lead to discouragement. For this reason, God is necessary for happiness. However, for the Christian happiness is probably not the main goal in life. Though in selfishness, it may be pursued occasionally. Happiness tends to be the side effect of pursuing God wholeheartedly. Which Aristotle would describe as virtue, but let us now return to my original point. God does not intend for humans to worry about the entire world’s welfare. That may sound harsh, but hear me out. He calls us to compassion and caring for the downtrodden, as stated in Exodus and elsewhere throughout the Bible. This probably does not mean we moan and groan about how awful the world is and live in despair. God calls us to live joyfully, and Jesus says to let tomorrow’s problems stay in tomorrow (Matthew 6:34). Recall that the entirety of the world is God’s responsibility, because only he is big enough to understand the thing in its entirety. This does not imply that Christians should disregard other people’s problems, but to be compassionate, help where we are able, but not to worry excessively and fall into despair.

With all of this talk of happiness, virtue, and compassion, there is a trap. God calls people to action, and they ought to act. Wholeheartedly, if possible. Aristotle is very blunt about people that are all talk: they are very foolish. Talking about goodness and happiness does not therefore make a person good or happy. George MacDonald wrote something similar in an unspoken sermon on justice. He says, “Oh the folly of any mind that would explain God before obeying Him! That would map out the character of God instead of crying, Lord, what wouldst thou have me to do?” (Lewis 104). Most of the time, people know what right and wrong actions are. This may be why Aristotle spends little time explicitly defining the virtues, and why MacDonald disapproves of theorizing instead of doing. It is important to actually live virtuously, and have compassion in deed and not simply in word.

MacDonald quote pulled from George MacDonald, a collection of his quotations compiled by C.S. Lewis.

Disclaimer: I am not a theologian. 

A Plate of Plato

In the Timaeus, Plato takes a substantial section to explain the structure of the body. He believes that the body’s structure was determined by putting the immortal and mortal functions in correct proportions to each other. He also describes the tension between the body and the soul. The body and soul must be in correct proportions. When they are not, this is when disease occurs. He emphasizes the importance of training both the body and the mind. Although there are other causes of disease, like bacteria, Plato makes a convincing point. The mind and body need to be working together towards health and strengthened simultaneously. Plato’s emphasis on training body and mind also recalls the Holmes reading. Looking back, Holmes references Plato in his essay, “Why the Liberal Arts,” saying that Plato is “. . . on the right track, but he forgets that some sports are also arts. . .so that the athlete may learn to understand and appreciate aesthetic values. . .” (Holmes 43). Holmes believes that athletics are capable of contributing to the intellectual, while Plato sees athletics mainly as a way to balance the body with the mind.  As an athlete, there have been times that sports have improved my mood and shaken me out of the fog of a long day of studying. There have also been times that I have watched sports, like figure skating, and thought that they were beautiful. However, the Plato side of athletics has been more present. Perhaps I have only played the less “aesthetic” sports, but I have trouble remembering times when I was struck with the beauty of sports. Here, Holmes’ view of exercise sounds wonderful, but is hazy when applied to life. His point would have been enhanced by an example; it is difficult to determine what he means by “aesthetic” sports. Does the athlete see the beauty, or does the spectator? If only the spectator, than what, again, is the benefit to the athlete? I lack sufficient answers to these questions, and therefore must side with Plato's arguments.

In our reading from The Republic, Plato wastes no time explaining the importance of the study of mathematics to the development of leaders. As someone who enjoys math, the justification for its study pleases me.  Plato sees the understanding of math as the gateway to realizing ‘that which is,’ or the things that are eternal and unchanging. For example, 2+2 will always equal 5.* Math also deals with ideas that are known to be true, but exist only in thought, like the number pi.  Since advanced math and geometry deals with these truths that are seen in the mind, they elevate thinking nearer to this ultimate understanding of ‘that which is.’  Why, then, is there not an abundance of college students double majoring in political science and mathematics?** Is math a precursor for being a leader? Perhaps learning logic rather than high-level math is sufficient. Logic’s main goal, after all, is to deduce ‘that which is’ from the available evidence. In his book, How We Think, Dewey examines the use of logic in training thought. He explains the importance of educating young people to think logically, and examines potential pitfalls for the educator. Although he references mathematics, he does not glorify the subject as the end-all method for teaching logical thought processes. Even C.S. Lewis, the Christian scholar known for his logical approach to faith struggled with mathematics (Jacobs, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C. S. Lewis). Unfortunately for my ego, the understanding of mathematics is likely not a necessary precursor to logical thought. Plato is correct, mathematics can be used to foster higher levels of thought, but the study of mathematics is not a gauge to measure the leadership abilities of a person.

*The only known exception to this mathematical fact occurred in the year 1984, when 2+2 occasionally equals 5.

* Interestingly, my high school Calculus teacher has a background in politics. She used to work for a state senator.

THE ILIAD!

The Iliad is an epic poem by Homer that tells the story of Achilles. Achilles’ story centers on the attempt of Achilles and the Greeks to conquer the city-state of Troy. This has been a difficult piece for me to analyze; I’m not sure what Homer’s purpose was in writing this tale. He offers a war story while injecting pastoral scenes and motifs into the tale. He then spends considerable time describing a shield, and his conclusion features the exchange of a body for a wagon of treasure. After carefully considering the text, I found interesting examples of the tension between free will and the will of the gods, as well as symbolism in Hephaestus’ shield.

In the first portion of reading, there is a moment where Hector’s wife despairs that Hector will soon be killed in battle. Apparently in an attempt to comfort her, Hector informs his wife that the gods have already decided if he will survive, and there is no escaping the edict of the divine powers. Therefore, avoiding battle does not necessarily guarantee longevity. This highlights the contrast between free will and fate. Hector trusts fate while his wife hopes that exercising free will would enable an escape from death.

This concept of fate is present in many Greek plays, including Sophocles’ tragedy Oedipus the King. In the play, Oedipus attempts to avoid his unfortunate fate, but is unable to avoid what the gods have ordained. Oedipus strives to exercise free will while Hector submits to fate. Both end up in unfortunate circumstances, leading to feelings of pity for the tragic characters. Even the hero, Achilles, is subject to fate.  Achilles gets to choose between two choices, but he is subject to the fate he chooses. Why does Achilles get to choose between two fates? Perhaps because he is a demigod he is slightly above mere mortals. He is allowed to decide between two unfavorable choices, giving the semblance of free will. However, his options were limited by the gods. The gods in Greek literature consistently deliver unsavory, unavoidable fates regardless of background or submissiveness to the gods.

Perhaps Hector believes that if he does the gods’ bidding, those he loves will be recompensed and left alone by the gods and their whims. He does this by encouraging the women to sacrifice to Athena, by rousing Paris to fight, and by willfully submitting to his fate. He pays these taxes to the gods in hopes that they will be appeased and allow the continuance of what he loves: Troy’s freedom and his family. The gods later repay this devotion by causing his body to be pristine after Achilles kills him and drags his body behind a chariot.

Later in the poem, Homer relates a shield made for Achilles in great detail. What is the purpose of this? Unless Homer was simply enamored with complex shield design, the shield is explained in such detail because its description has some deeper meaning. The shield features two cities and several pastoral scenes that are described in detail. The second city described features an army attempting to invade. Homer explains one of the attacking army’s problems stating, “. . . two plans split their ranks: to plunder the city or share the riches with its people” (Homer 594-95.) The army in the second city symbolizes Achilles and the indecision foreshadows events in the poem. Later in the epic, Achilles is faced with a decision regarding the body of Hector. He could keep the body for the sake of vengeance, and “plunder the city.” Or, he could allow the king to take Hector’s body (share the riches). Achilles decides to share the spoils, but the decision of the split army in the shield remains ambiguous. This may be because in the shield and after Achilles’ decision, the war carries on regardless.  

I may be over-analyzing Homer’s motives in this work. The shield of Hephaestus was probably meant to symbolize society or something big. Personally, I prefer the theory that Homer was simply a shield nerd. Also, the motives I attribute to Hector, his wife, and the gods may be completely off the mark. This is simply the interpretation that I see. I am curious to hear other interpretations in class, because everybody will understand the story in their own way.

Response to Exodus and Robinson

In the beginning of Exodus, Pharaoh commands the Israelite midwives to kill the Israelite’s newborn male offspring. The midwives do not do this, and when questioned say that “Hebrew women. . . give birth before the midwives arrive” (Exodus 1). The text goes on to say that God blesses the midwives. This raises a serious question: is deception ever acceptable? Later in the text, God gives the law, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). Clearly, God considers lying wrong. However, the midwives lied to Pharaoh and were blessed by God. Was lying justified in this instance because it was the alternative to killing Israelite children?  This is incident is reminiscent of a similar situation in 1940’s Germany. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian that opposed the Nazi regime and the treatment of Jews by Hitler. Bonhoeffer decided to enter into a plot against Hitler, and in doing so was forced into deception. He had arrived at a place in his walk with Christ where he rejected what he considered basic legalism. He instead had “a respect for the truth that was so deep, it forced him beyond the easy legalism of truth telling” (Metaxas 365.) To Bonhoeffer, the spirit of the truth was not simply avoiding a lie, but rather walking so closely with God that “one did not live legalistically by ‘rules’ or ‘principles’” (Metaxas 367.) This is a difficult for me to fully understand. Honestly, (pun intended) I am not sure how I feel about broadening or modifying my view of truth. On the surface, it can be seen as a rejection of God’s law. However, I do see the alternative issue of allowing atrocities because of an unwavering devotion to textbook truth-telling.

            Later in the story of the Israelite’s struggles with Egypt, God uses plagues to convince the Egyptians to release the Israelites. A question comes to mind here: why plagues? It would have been much simpler and easier for God to wipe out the Egyptians, effectively freeing the Israelites. It could even be justified; the Egyptians enslaved God’s chosen people. Furthermore, why does God allow the Israelites to live under the yoke of the Egyptians for hundreds of years and then suddenly decide to send Moses to free the Egyptians? In Robinson’s essay on Moses, she offers an explanation for the latter question. She explains that the Israelites were able to take possession of the land only after the Canaanites ceased to be worthy of it. God did not decide to randomly kick the Canaanites out, rather it is implied that the Canaanites somehow became wicked and undeserving of their land. After this occurs, God begins the process of transporting the Israelites into the promised land. We now come back to the former question: why did God subject the Egyptians and Israelites to plagues? God himself declares that, “. . . I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the earth” (Exodus 9:16.) This can be interpreted many ways based on one’s overall view of God. I am of the opinion that God is ultimately good, and so shall interpret the passage through that light. By making his power known, God was showing mercy to the Egyptians. He could have wiped them out, yet he chose not to. Instead, God plagued the Egyptians that they might see his power. Note that the majority of the plagues merely caused discomfort. Except for the final plague, the Passover, God was not gallivanting around Egypt killing Egyptians. Although the final plague did kill the first born, God also provided a way to avoid this. The text does not expressly say that the Egyptians could participate in the ritual, but it appears to be probable. God, throughout Exodus, displays mercy by giving opportunities for the Egyptians to see his power and decide to ingratiate themselves with the Hebrew’s God.

In the Robinson reading, it is explained that the Old Testament and its God are often given a bad reputation by critics that pick and choose the aspects of the Old Testament they look at and willfully misinterpret. According to Robinson, many scholars completely ignore the laws that have a chance at representing God as something other than an angry, archaic deity. Robinson notes that the New Testament and Jesus are often left untouched by scholars. The Old Testament takes the brunt of the abuse. She notes in her final paragraphs that many of Jesus’ maxims are echoes of Mosaic law. Robinson’s point is displayed wonderfully in Exodus when God demands care for the poor and does not allow mistreatment of aliens. The law given to the people after leaving Egypt is further evidence that God is merciful and loving. A cruel God would not tell people to take care of the poor, be kind to strangers, and party. Obviously, God did not suddenly become loving when Christ came into the world, God has been loving and merciful since the book of Exodus, at least.

                       

Reflections on Holmes and Dewey

       In chapter three of Holmes’ book, he explores the topic of the liberal arts. He explains that the question is not, “What can I do with all this stuff anyway?” but should be, “What will all this stuff do to me?” (Holmes). To Holmes, the point of liberal education is not to learn a specific skill set. It is to learn how to become adaptable, and how to be more fully human. The point is made that simple vocational skills will one day be arbitrary. For this reason, adaptability should be a focus in education along with the narrow skills. This point is displayed in current times with the rapid change in technology. New electronics are considered ancient after two or three years. Therefore, learning to be adaptable lasts longer than learning only how to do a skill.

       When describing what a liberal education is, Holmes avoids a simple list of subjects. The explanation is that a simple subject list poses the danger of producing a jack-of-all-trades. Holmes wants education to produce a whole individual, not someone who dabbles in a little bit of everything. To produce a whole person, Holmes explains that there must be an understanding of what man is. Man must learn to be rational, through reading and writing. Man also should learn history, because without it, “(people) lose the sense of their own identity, for the present and the future are what they are in relation to the past” (Holmes). Not only is understanding history necessary to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, but history is essential to understanding the present. A knowledge of history can be compared to having a mathematical function. Without an f(x), the present is like random coordinates being plotted on a graph. With an f(x) to put the numbers into, the random numbers become something more meaningful, forming a line on a graph. Finally, Holmes explains that education should stress the importance of values. Holmes ends by explaining that a liberal arts education develops a person to be more fully human, and therefore a better Christian.

       In Dewey’s book, “How We Think,” he explains what it means to deeply reflect. According to Dewey, reflection begins when a person encounters a problem. Reflection continues when the person looks for clues that could lead to the solution. The suggestions that occur come from prior knowledge and experience. This is reminiscent of what Holmes says of learning history. There must be a past in order to have ideas for the solution of present problems. Dewey also explains that thinking beings take intentional action, rather than being subject to instinct and habit. Holmes makes a similar point, stating that humans are capable of changing the shape of the future, instead of being subject to it.

     Dewey explains that the main problem with reflection is that inferences can go wrong. He then references the works of Locke and Bacon when explaining the intrinsic and extrinsic errors that harm making sound inferences in thought. To Dewey, education must teach students to discriminate between inferences and overcome the extrinsic and intrinsic errors in their thought processes.

       Dewey then explains what it means to be logical, stating that logic is the attempt to think carefully in order to achieve the best possible result. He then explains that schools should see the relationship between psychology and logic in order to promote logical thought. Teachers should not expect children to begin with logical, adult thought. They instead should understand the logic of each stage of development and guide the student towards logical thought. At this point, an example of a good educator would be useful. Dewey spends significant time in this work explaining what an educator should avoid doing. For example, school should neither be totalitarian or completely free of attempts at reflection. He states that deep thinking should be promoted, but gives little help on how to do so. The reader must draw on other sources. Holmes’ idea of reading and writing is useful here. Holmes believes that doing these activities will help solidify understanding. Here, somewhat contrary to the whole of their respective articles, Holmes gives a method of learning to think while Dewey explains the end goal of the educator. 

       

       These pieces by Dewey and Holmes complement each other well. Throughout his writing, Dewey refers to the importance of logical thought. However, he fails to address an overall reason for reflection. The main reason he gives is that thinking well allows for freedom. Holmes explain throughout his work that the main reason for a liberal education is to become more fully human, and therefore to become a better Christian. In essence, Dewey explains the steps towards becoming a logical thinker, and Holmes explains why learning to do so is important.

An Introduction

Hello Everybody,

My name is Kaitlyn. I am attending Olivet this fall with an undeclared major. However, I am taking engineering and math courses. Furthermore, I am a member of the track team this year. Typically I run longer sprint events (200m and 400m).

Something I  really enjoy doing is reading. Right now I'm trying to finish up the biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. It is a brick! I also started the second installment of the Harry Potter series last night. A couple of my favorite books are: The Scarlet Letter, Till We Have Faces, The Penderwicks, and Pride and Prejudice. Other things I enjoy doing are playing the piano, crocheting, baking, and playing sports.

I'm looking forward to a fabulous time together!

Kaitlyn Elmer