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.