Christian Thinking Beyond the Classroom

Cause to Be uneasy

NbrinK — Fri, 14 May 2010 18:22:45 +0000

What’s the question(s) that someone could ask you which would shake your philosophical/theological footing? In other words, is there any argument or question that deep down you fear would, if you walk into it, likely find you not being able to hold your own ground … or at least, make you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about? What are those areas of discourse for which you do no feel prepared?

An Authentic Anthropology of Self

NbrinK — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:37:52 +0000

What does it mean to know yourself? Socrates said that we are to know ourselves … but how do we get there? Kreeft says that anthropology is far more complex than metaphysics of epistemology – because it’s trying to aim at a target – while being that target. That’s a pretty tall order.

Were a person to embark on a journey to know himself, what would be the necessary steps in that pursuit? What are the questions that one must ask of himself?

When said journey is at an end (play with the metaphor … I know that we can never fully know ourselves this side of heaven), how would that affect our lives? Would they be any different?

Knowing

NbrinK — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:43:17 +0000

In The Philosophy of Jesus, Kreeft says that Jesus is epistemology incarnate. What a great statement! The truth – the logos – became flesh, and stood before Pilate proclaim himself as truth. Though, Pilate didn’t know what Jesus was talking about, so he responded, “what is truth?” I wonder how similar our own culture is to that of Pilate.

What would have to happen to a person for him to lose sight of what truth is? Is there such a way to speak about truth to our culture so that people can clearly understand truth?

Avoiding Dualism

NbrinK — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:34:58 +0000

After a recent conference I went to, I was reminded of the tendency to draw inappropriate lines between that which is Christian and that which is not. Granted, if things are contrary to God’s character, they certainly are not good. But, to say that something of Christian title or emblem is better than its counterpart that does not bear the same branding is somehow superior misses the mark. Therefore, Harvard is not automatically inferior or “ungodly” than whatever Christian college that you suggest.

Where do you see most clear evidences of this misconception? Where are we most prone to draw these lines?

At the same time, though, we do need standards – so what standards would we use to say that something Christian is better than something non-Christian – or the reverse? Also, what would be the areas that we should embrace the “Christian” over the “non-Christian” … where would having something Christian be clearly better than something that is no? (e.g. a Christian plumber vs. a non-Christian one … *note, that’s not what I’m suggesting, just giving it as an example.)

Stressed?

NbrinK — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:33:01 +0000

A lot of people are doing a lot of things right now – and seem pretty tired. What’s the point of stress? Why is it that we handle things this way? Is there even a common definition of what “stressed” out is?

None of us like it that much, so let’s talk about how things ought to be: Considering how things were meant to be and what we currently see, what would we be seeing in an ideal world (in regard to those things that lead to stress – and fall within our definition of it).

Philosophical Questions

NbrinK — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:30:14 +0000

Post your questions here – anonymously. Then, your answers and comments on those answers must show who you are. Let the good times begin!

The need for Knowledge

NbrinK — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:57:20 +0000

In his book, Studies in Words, CS Lewis says that knowing the history and meaning of a word is very important. He says that, “knowledge is necessary. Intelligence and sensibility by themselves are not enough.”

He goes on to say that “It is not enough to make sense. We have to find the sense that the author intended.”

In this case, Lewis is talking specifically about how people have forgone the need to actually study what words mean, and rely on intelligence to figuring things out. Though, Lewis says that a person still has to actually approach this with a certain bank of information … he has to “know something.”

Quite often, we can be tempted to just “B.S.” our way through life (it’s unfortunate that the letter stand for something that can’t be written on the blog … because that’s not the intent here. I’m trying to use it as an innocent verb … sort of like “google.”) Alas, but I’m committing “verbicide” as Lewis would say.

To the question(s): Why is actually “knowing” anything worth anything? Why have we moved away from making sure that we have laid the foundation of knowledge first – before we begin our discussions? Where do you see ignorant attempts at conversing around a topic most frequent? Do you actually have to know anything to be able to make informed statements? Where does just being a good thinker come into it? What’s that good for? What other thoughts do you have about Lewis’ quotes?

Aristotle and Morality

NbrinK — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:46:00 +0000

Aristotle gives three rules for figuring out how to navigate the sea of moral action. Considering hitting the “golden mean” would require doing a certain action at the right amount, in the right way, at the right time, etc., the task is quite hard. We are going to er on one side or the other – in excess or deficiency. Knowing that, Aristotle offers that we should:

1.) Figure out which vice is a greater threat, and move in the opposite direction (it would be better to wind up on the other side of the mean)

2.) Consider your own tendencies toward vice, and move away from that tendency.

3.) Guard against pleasure when deciding which tendency to move toward.

Are there any other rules that can help us figure out where we need to be on the moral spectrum?

Men without Chests

NbrinK — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:01:55 +0000

One of the things that Plato and Aristotle dealt with is the notion that the reason ought to govern the emotions … i.e. the head ought to tempter the heart. As a guy, I tend to agree with this – not wanting people to allow their emotions to take the best of them … but I tend to worry about this for some reasons:

In The Everlasting Man, GK Chesterton writes, “It is not the madman who has lost his reason; it is the madman who has lost everything but his reason.”

and In The Abolition of Man, CS Lewis writes that we have created a culture of people with huge heads – but nothing to support them … “Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so.” He also goes on to speak about this by saying, “In a short of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

First of all, what do you think about these quotes? (I could write a great deal about them.) But, beyond that … what do you think that Lewis means by men without chests – and how are they connected to the madmen that Chesterton fears? What is the connection to ethics … and the role of the soul in ethics? Why do we need more than sheer reason? What more do we need?

The Shadow of Eternity

NbrinK — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:00:10 +0000

As discussed today, Socrates closes his argument against an improper use of rhetoric by bringing up the issue of eternity. He says that whether or not a person points others toward goodness matters even more when considering that our spirits will live beyond this world.

Are there any other of human experience that ought to be considered in a completely new light because of the shadow that eternity casts on them?