The Book Nook

2006-06-12T05:44:00.000-07:00

To any and all: Byron Borger's fantastic article in Comment is a bookworm's alluring insight into how to love reading well.

Currently Reading

2006-06-10T04:16:00.000-07:00

I'm currently reading The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman.

It's a fascinating review of the forces of globalism. A little on the long side perhaps, but filled with personally anecdotes of experiences of the effects of globalism.

2006-03-05T11:52:00.000-08:00

Amazon.ca: Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, Gun-Loving Organic Gardeners, Evangelical Free-Range Farmers, Hip Homeschooling Mamas, Right-Wing Nature Lovers, and Their Diverse: Books

Another book worth reading, just for the title.

HT

American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville - The New York Times Book Review

2006-01-31T18:40:00.000-08:00

If I could read French, then I could read this. Sounds good for a laugh.

Another look at Abraham - and God

2005-07-11T11:30:00.000-07:00

In Playing With Knives: God the Dangerous Douglas Wilson offers some more thoughts on Abraham, Isaac, Moriah, knives, killing, ethics, niceness, and God.

teleological suspension of the ethical?

2005-07-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

This past weekend I was blessed to hear nova m'gwa's thoughts on Problem Two in Fear and Trembling. Attempting to state the situation simply, in Problem Two Kierkegaard attempts to explain both the horror and the inexplicable paradox of what seems to be Abraham's succumbing to ethical sin in intending to sacrifice Isaac; despite the fact that fully intending to kill one's son is murderous and wrong, somehow this intent is exhibition of faith in this particular situation. How can this be? In some way, Abraham's responsibility to the norm, to the universal ethic, is superceded by his action of faith. S.K.'s point is that this is cannot be 'mediated', or understood.

Nova's frustration with S.K. stemmed from this problem: how can -- or should -- faith supercede the ethical? Is it not a grotesque copout to say that faith can just break all the rules, and does not need the governance of reason? Furthermore, does faith require that the ethical be 'teleologically suspended', or is it possible to have faith without that?

I'm not sure what the answer is. However, it may be helpful to note that Kierkegaard wrote in a time and place where the concern was not between faiths of different religions; the issue which he was addressing was a lack of vibrant and passionate faith. Rather than wrestling with the peculiarities of fear and trembling before the will of an Almighty God, people ho-hummed as they left to sleep through the afternoon service of their once-per-week 'Lord's Day'.

Kierkegaard may have had little or no concern that his words could be taken to mean that all instances of faith, no matter which religion, were excused or even required to suspend the ethical. And this may be his failing.

My own resolution of Abraham's predicament still tends toward rational explanation; I like the voluntaristic explanation of the late medieval period: God's will determines the ethical, and his absolute power means that he can -- but does not -- make anything ethical; the idea of ethical norm does, however, retain meaning through the ordained power of God, by which he upholds the standards for life.

Kierkegaardian Faith

2005-06-22T06:43:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting that all of SK's discussion of such matters takes place in the context of a pre-determined ethical base. Not only that, but SK also acknowledges that this ethical base is completely accessible without Scripture.

The only thing that separates the pagan Greeks from the "Christian" world is SK's conception of faith; but even here SK talks about Plato praising the "divine madness" and seems to understand that to refer to faith as well.

It is no wonder that existentialists following him make light of his Christian commitment. Though he uses examples of faith from Scripture, it is unclear whether belief in the God of Abraham is a necessary prerequisite for SK's faith at all.

My Confession

2005-06-16T18:35:00.000-07:00

Hey Group.
It is with much shame that I must confess that I will not have time in the next couple of weeks to comment on (let alone read) the book that I suggested for our little book club. I am begging your pardon, counting on your abundant mercy.

Also, I have noticed that we have had many visitors interested in our little discussion group. Some of these visitors feel as though they are intruding on an inclusive club. Richie, perhaps you could put something at the top of our sidebar indicating that we love to have visitors read along and submit any comments to our discussion.

Cheers all, and I will check in a couple of weeks from now.

By the way Richie, good comments so far. It is good that someone in our group is taking this seriously.

Finite vs. Infinite

2005-06-12T20:06:00.000-07:00

A charge commonly levelled at Kierkegaard is that he places an impassible divide between the spiritual and the earthly, the infinite and the finite. This seems to be false, to me.

For rather than severing these two, Kierkegaard simply recognizes the incommensurability of the infinite and the finite. They are utterly immiscible. But he goes on to stress the mind-paralyzing paradox of how they do -- inevitably -- come together in the life of faith. Nowhere is this paradox more heart-warmingly clear than in his example of the Knight of Faith, who

takes delight in everything, and whenever one sees him taking part in a particular pleasure, he does it with the persistence which is the mark of the earthly man whose soul is absorbed in such things . . . He lounges at an open window and looks out on the square on which he lives; he is interested in everything that goes on , in arat which slips under the curb, in the children's play, and this with the nonchalance of a girl of sixteen. And yet he is no genius, for in vain I have sought in him the incommensurability of genius. ("Problemata: Preliminary Expectoration", Fear and Trembling)

Kierkegaard's man of faith is supremely this-worldly, by virtue of his other-worldliness.

What is education?

2005-06-12T19:49:00.000-07:00

"What is education? I should suppose that education was the curriculum one had to run through in order to catch up with oneself, and he who will not pass through this curriculum is helped very little by the fact that he was born in the most enlightened age."
- Soren Kierkegaard

A pair of gut reflexions

2005-06-11T21:00:00.000-07:00

In the ‘Prelude’ Kierkegaard allows us to peek in on the horror of the man whose faith demands that he kill his own child. But the ‘Pangyric upon Abraham’ wrung me through the wash; what monstrous command could tear away the beloved of Abraham’s weathered years? The clarity of Abraham’s faith never shone so brightly before me as it does now.

"Yet Abraham believed, and believed for this life"(Emphasis mine). S.K. subtly makes a powerful point: it takes a firmer sort of faith to believe in these broken days than in the starry brightness of an other-worldly science-fiction future. I have to swallow hard and lower my gaze to the ground when I think of how even my 'this-worldly faith’ likes to look off beyond the corners, to pretend it has little to do with what goes on within these walls.

Johannes de Silentio

2005-06-10T23:24:00.000-07:00

As I read the first bits of Fear and Trembling, I hear the voice of Craig reminding me of the significance of S.K.'s pseudonym. "Listen for the silence."

Has anyone else been struck by the silence in the retellings of Abraham's trial? Again and again, Abraham spends four days with his son in silence as they approach the mount of doom. As Kierkegaard doubtless intended, that silence is most terrifying and unsettling -- but how would one fill it?

Commence operation Kierkegaard

2005-06-07T18:20:00.000-07:00

Welcome aboard Maria, it's good to have you with us! Now we have our own resident philosopher. I was thinking about our little group and this really is an interdisciplinary group. In addition to being our only real artist--he has a pseudonym!--Jay, is into English (and theology I believe), Richie and Steve are extreme biology nerdlings (although Richie's saving grace is his double major in Religion/theology). I am a history buff as well as an aspiring biblical theologian. A well rounded group I'd say. It should make for good discussion.

Anyway, everyone seems to have Fear and Trembling so I think we should begin reading/discussing. Don't forget Richie's strict rules.

Peace

The Kierkgaard Agenda

2005-06-04T13:40:00.000-07:00

Growing up, I only knew of Kierkegaard as the father of a romantic existential movement in philosophy. Many are learning to understand him in a new way, however.

Kierkegaard, it appears, was actually a fervent and troubled Christian who was overwhelmingly appalled by the nominal belief of his countrymen; Denmark had been Lutheran for years, and took its membership in Christendom for granted. However, the vital, dynamic, individual and communal, relationship with God the Father Almighty, through the horrible sacrificial death of the Son and the ministering of the Spirit -- that was what S.K. wanted to see reinstated, valued as the pearl of the Kingdom it is.

The House Church Central site has a blurb on the agenda driving Kierkegaard's literary soul-searching.

New Book

2005-05-31T19:42:00.000-07:00

Hey guys. I talked with Richie and he asked me to suggest our next reading. I would like to read Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard, but I want the group's input on this. I know Richie has read it and perhaps others of you have too. If that is the case I will suggest another one. Perhaps those who have read it would welcome the opportunity to read it again with the benefit of discussion.
The book, as far as I know, is S.K.s struggle to understand Genesis 22 (the binding of Isaac) and ultimately to understand a God who would require this test of his beloved. This book fits the criteria of being easily accessible, a classic, and fairly cheap (chapters.ca for about $15) and I think it will stimulate our minds and generate a good discussion.
Let me know what you think about this pick and if it is not agreeable to everyone I will go back to the drawing board.

ps Congrats to those who graduated on Saturday. I'm sure it was as much a blessing for you as it was for me.

Comment

2005-05-30T09:00:00.000-07:00

Hey friends, our comments work now.

Unrelated

2005-05-26T22:27:00.000-07:00

(Just so you aren't all freaked out, I changed my pseudonym and decided to use it here as well as on my personal blog. I hope that's okay with everyone. I was getting sick of seeing "the coob" here and my real name there all the time. Thanks, guys. Peace.)

Which Came First Crito or Republic?

2005-05-25T17:45:00.000-07:00

I thought I should step in and settle question concerning the ordering of Plato's writing. I looked back in my notes for Wolter's Ancient Medieval Philosophy (go figure, class notes do come in handy)--Crito was written in Plato's early period (6th of his known writings) and the Republic falls in his middle period (somewhere around 18th).

"The Many"

2005-05-25T12:45:00.000-07:00

Rich, I was just about to blog about the very statement you brought to our attention in your last piece. I sat and puzzled over the passage where Socrates explains why the many can't do the greatest evil nor the greatest good. He says: "... [T]hey can do neither good nor evil; they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance." I suppose there are a couple things we need to figure out about the many, not least of which is their identity. I assumed at first that "the many" are the uninformed, though upon closer inspection, this seems to be inaccurate. They are contrasted with "good men" and "the wise".

I believe that when Socrates refers to "the many" he is not referring to 'persons', but to 'people'. It seems to be necessary to Socrates's argument that "the many" are not a group of persons but one entity, whose actions cannot be accounted for ("whatever they do is the result of chance"). I think that we should note (especially regarding your comments on division within the church) that Socrates's concern here is not with the actions of groups or governing/institutional bodies (aka the Church), but with the actions and responsibilities of one prototypical individual.

When seeking for the 'good' life, one must not act according to the opinions of "the many" who are not "wise" or "good". (it seem that any meeting of the wise's opinions with the opinions of the many must be a logical accident.) One must only be concerned with the opinions of people who one willingly submits to (for example, the gymnast's trainer, or the state of Athens). Here I think Socrates sticks to his guns with vigor. Not only does he willingly dispense with the opinions of the many in living his life (a hard task), but he again binds himself to one thing he has celebrated and submitted to in his life, even if it means death (a much harder task, I think). (Granted, it is the nature of the state to be submitted to, but I don't think that changes the problem.)

I think this holds with your point about loving your neighbour as well, Rich. One must love and pay attention to individuals, but Socrates is not talking about individuals, he is talking about "the many", and "the many" is not your neighbour. (Or maybe it is. I don't think so right now. But my opinion on this point is weak.)
Anyways, I've written enough, and I should probably go.

As for the order of Crito and the Republic, could it be possible that the Republic is a fleshing out of Plato's earlier dialogues?

Peace, guys, and good reading.

Crito written when?

2005-05-24T22:38:00.000-07:00

Thanks for the precis on the background of Crito, Jay. However, the collection and wording of Socrates' argument on behalf of the state is heavily reminiscent of the Republic; I wonder if The Republic was written first. Just re-read those bits in argument of hardcore statism. Is this possible?

Questioning Crito

2005-05-24T22:32:00.000-07:00

Thanks for the insights so far, folks! This blog has already been worth my time.

I too found a reading of Crito to be akin to a deja vu experience; for instance, Socrates' thought that "we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him" sounds like it could have come straight out of a Gospel. So the points made on 'secular wisdom' have been well taken.

Call me post-modern, but I missed the heart in Socrates' words. This is, of course, intentional on his part; a fie on the flesh and attached emotions! Yet I still believe that there is a reason Christ called the he who is without sin to be the one to cast the first stone.

Where am I going with this? Although Socrates only uses the point about paying attention to the opinion of "the many" versus that of "the wise" as a stepping-stone in his argument, I wonder at the response given to this question. Based on a purely rational thought pattern, it is true that one should only care for those whose opinion is good. At the same time, does not loving our neighbour involve caring for the opinion of another, another whose opinion may not be good?

In the context of church unity, we are faced with the fact that many nonbelievers use the fact that Christianity is so split and vague as an excuse to avoid the Church. Often it is just that, an excuse. The term "excuse" would suggest that their opinion is not good or wise. However, what then of our witness? Are we not to care, simply because that is a poor opinion? I would suggest not. And I would suggest that the reason we are to still care for the opinion of those who may not be wise because we are to love those who may not be wise, even our enemies.

Socrates might not have approved of my definition of love. Some might suggest that true love is different than the 'touchy-feely' kind of thing our culture knows, and thus Socrates might have approved of true love. My response is that love transcends such a demeaning picture of love; love is bereft of wonderful meaning if it only assumes a hardline, rational (duty) aspect. But I wander; allow me to get back on track.

I found Socrates to be fascinating, but I always feel -- a result, perhaps, of living in a different time and place -- uncomfortable with the assumptions his interlocutors allow him to make. In this case the assumption which rankled is that the poor opinion of the many has no value or meaning for the one who would be wise.

On a petty note, is anyone else occasionally irritated by the pat answers of Socrates' interlocutors? Placid and limp are they. I know it is a literary convention, but it drives splinters under my finger-nails.

A Response to Stephen's Post

2005-05-24T18:06:00.000-07:00

I too found this to be a stimulating read. I’m not sure I would call Socrates’ sentiments nationalistic—rather he recognizes legitimate authority ruling according to a reasonable code of law.

I really appreciate your question about "secular wisdom." On the other hand I wonder at the fact that after four years of indoctrination at Redeemer you dare to speak of "secular" anything. Although I am being somewhat facetious, I think that "secular wisdom" as such is something of a contradiction in terms. We discussed these issues quite deeply in Bartholomew’s class when we covered the Book of Proverbs (Jason will remember I’m sure). One of the fundamentals of true wisdom involves coming to a right understanding of God’s design for creation—whether in the arts, agriculture, relationships, law, etc. Is it possible for a pagan philosopher to tap into the truth concerning the nature of authority, laws, and politics, and could this be constituted as wisdom (in the true sense)? I think so.

Justin Matyr (100-165), one of the earliest Church Fathers, thought about these things. His musings are interesting. "Plato, . . . the Stoics, poets and historians—each of them spoke in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic word . . . Whatever things were rightly said among all people are the property of us Christians." He even goes so far as to suggest that these are in fact (anonymous?) Christians. "We have been taught that Christ is the firstborn of God, and we have declared that he is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; those who lived by reason are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists—as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them . . ." While I certainly would not attempt to argue that Socrates was some sort of pre-Christian, Justin is on to something by asserting that all wisdom finds its source in God. While the phrase "all truth is God’s truth" is nauseatingly quaint, it is nonetheless true.

Another Church Father, Tertullian, asked, "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy?"

Answer: Everything!

Comment/Response to Plato's "Crito"

2005-05-24T16:23:00.000-07:00

Comments:

I found this short dialogue to be remarkably packed full of wisdom. I
wondered as I read whether Socrates was under some supernatural
guidance? Or was the strength of reason alone enough to provide him
all he needed to reach such conclusions.

I was quite surprised to read of the extent to which Socrates valued
the state he was a part of – a very strong sense of nationalism, which
leads to ties being misaligned. However, I found myself making the
analogy of Christians as part of the heavenly Kingdom, and then was
able to resonate with a great deal of Socrates' rhetoric. How often
do we not make a simple, individualistic decision which we feel
moderately compromises our personal relationship to the King, not
realizing the impact that our actions have on the entire Kingdom, the
Body of Christ!!! It is amazing, the extent to which our
individualism has taken us; we simply do not think in terms of
community, but only in terms of how my decision affects me (and
perhaps those close to me, whom I love).

I was especially appreciative of Socrates' stand on principle,
principles that he refused to let go of, no matter what the contextual
changes. As Christians we seem so incredibly quick and willing to let
go of a particular principle if some small changes are encountered
(one recently hitting home for me – if I need to work on Sundays to
get a job, so be it!). For myself, it was very good to have the
reminder that it is God who has the entire horizon in view, and it is
therefore rightly He who makes the principles, and it is simply my lot
to follow. Following is not something which comes naturally, not
something which I do easily. However, I'm quite certain that in
following the King there will be ample ways in which, in humility, any
leadership skills I have been given (as a gift!) may be put to use. .
.

Alas, enough of the rambling. Jay, I appreciate the suggestion of
this brief but stimulating read. It provided a good deal of food for
thought, and I did indeed appreciate the wisdom contained herein.
Perhaps on a final note – what does it mean to take this secular
wisdom and completely refound it on the rock of Christ?! Let's be
sure this requirement is a part of our considerations as we read. . .

And let us always allow the Spirit to be our final guide, leading us
in the particularized application of principle.

Le Fin.

So, Crito?

2005-05-24T14:58:00.000-07:00

At Richard's behest, I have decided to write a short introduction to the first book to be enjoyed by our group--though David and Stephen seem to have started our discussion nicely.

The following biographical data comes exclusively from the "Biographical Note" to the seventh volume (Plato) of Great Books of the Western World (Toronto: William Benton, 1952). The Crito belongs to a group of Plato's earlier dialogues dedicated to the life and memory of Socrates. It is assumed (by the editors of The Great Books) that Plato wrote the Crito towards the end of the early dialogues, but before his Republic and Laws. For our discussion, however, this information is mostly insubstantial, as widening the topic to Plato's corpus would give us far too much to talk about--in addition to violating Rules 2 and 5.

Since I was responsible for choosing the Crito as our first book, I feel required to give reasons for my decision. These reasons are three (or six):
1. It is Plato. Therefore, a) it is classic in every sense of the word, and b) it is easy to get a copy of, and c) it is involved with seeking out the Good (read: "it is interdisciplinary")
2. It is short. So, if everyone finds it terribly boring, no harm done.
3. I, myself, had not yet read it.

A short introduction: The dialogue is set in death row, where Socrates awaits execution. His friend, Crito, arrives early in the morning to convince Socrates to escape. At first glance, the Crito seems to be most broadly about a person's relation to the State. As this is a mere introduction to the book, I will finish my post before I start to ramble. Joyful reading, all.

Crito

2005-05-23T19:54:00.000-07:00

Well, I thought I would give in and be the first of the lazy, summer-enjoying, bloggers to write a post on Plato's Crito.
I am intrigued by Socrates' thoughts about a citizen's obligation to comply with the state and its laws. It makes a lot of sense, though I doubt that today anyone would assume that the state actually produces its citizens (it speaks of the state giving birth to its citizens, nurturing and giving them education). People today are more individualistic supposing that the government owes them something rather than vice versa (which Crito suggests).
I also found the reference to Hades interesting (Hades is the Greek name for the place of departed spirits). What is suggested is that Socrates actions on earth have implications in the afterlife. If Socrates acts according to the standard of justice and goodness (i.e. not agreeing to a plan of escape but accepting his death sentence with integrity) he will be able to give a good account of himself in Hades. Plato is not always consistent with regards to his views about various things (Plato scholars have categorized his works according to chronology. With this schema they have tried to discern the development of his thoughts. Thus apparent inconsistencies can be understood). With regard to life after death, Plato argued for a type of reincarnation. If I remember correctly, only the completely wise one who transcends the world of shadows will participate in the world of the "ideas" after his death. Perhaps because Plato considered Socrates the wisest man, he assumed that Socrates was bound for the Ideal world.