Honors "Final"

this blog post doesn't deserve a title

            If I am being completely honest, I don’t see the point of the reading for this week.  To me, it just seemed like the reflections of a man in a cell, trying to provide some sort of comfort to himself.  Boethius even acknowledges this himself (even though he probably doesn’t mean to) when he refers to the personification of philosophy as “the perfect comforter” and a source of “strength”.  What Boethius desires from Philosophy is not knowledge or wisdom, but he asks for her to “show me quickly what true happiness is” (Boethius 37).  This demand that he makes does not sound like a demand that would be made in a Christian text.  While the majority of this writing focuses on the natural logic and reason of man, it is still considered to be a Christian text, but should it?

            Throughout Boethius’ conversation with Philosophy, she uses natural logic and reasoning to help Boethius come to the conclusions that he comes to.  In the writing, there were obvious influences of philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle.  It seemed to reference philosophy and reasoning more than it did Christianity.  In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes that “we conceive happiness to be the most desirable of all things” (Aristotle, 14).  Then in The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius writes “To true happiness, to the goal your mind has dreamed of” (Boethius 37).  And I haven’t yet mentioned the writing style of Boethius’ prose.  The dialogue of The Consolation of Philosophy closely resembles that of Plato’s The Republic in that one character (Philosophy and Socrates) propose thoughts and ideas from logic, then their listeners agree or occasionally ask a question for clarification (side note: this structure really bothers me as the author is just attempting to validate their own arguments).  I don’t think that this should be considered a Christian text if it has more in common with philosophy than Christianity.

            Some would argue that it is a Christian text because it was written by a Christian and is a reflection on God.  Boethius claims that “we must agree that the most high God is full of the highest and most perfect good” (Boethius 55).  While reading this through a Christian lens, one may find nothing wrong with this statement.  However, I think that followers of other monotheistic religions would also find nothing wrong with it while reading it through their lens.  For example, the Quran claims that “God is most compassionate towards you, a dispenser of grace” (Surah 57).  Both of these quotes speak of God’s goodness and grace, but the difference is that one is just the reflections of a man, while the other is actually from a religious text.  The later is about the Islamic God but the former is just a statement on whatever divine being exist outside of our world.  The only piece of information that we have that would lead us to believe that Boethius is referring to the Christian God is the fact that he was a Christian.  There is no actual evidence in the text itself.

            *mic drop*

            Okay fine.  I’ll actually write some sort of conclusion.  I don’t think that any text should be considered a Christian text except for the Bible.  As Basil had pointed out, there is a place for pagan literature and we can still learn from it, but this text is not to be considered a religious text like the Bible is.

Doofus

            Ever since Ian Cron spoke on addiction in chapel on November 9^th, I’ve been thinking about addiction (you can watch it at http://tinyurl.com/gp34npr ).  We as humans typically confine addiction to very specific cases such as addiction to substances, gambling, sex, and many other things.  Mr. Cron pointed out that we are all addicted to several things whether we know it or not.  St. Augustine writes about his personal experiences with this in his work Confessions.  The goal of the honors class is to consider what it means to be human.  Based off of the reading for this week, I would venture to say that being human means to be addicted to sin.

            I’ll be the first to admit that the statement that I made above makes me uncomfortable, but I think that it a good thing.  I would hope that this doesn’t sit well with anybody.  St. Augustine wrote on his experience with this idea.  To briefly summarize for those who are unfamiliar with the text, Augustine recalls stealing pears from his neighbor, when he himself already had better pears.  He did not steal “so as to enjoy the fruits of my crime, but rather to enjoy the theft itself, and the sin.” (Augustine 36).  There is a French phrase, L’appel du vide, that references this idea.  The phrase translates to “the call of the void” and refers to self-destructive impulses that one experiences in their everyday life.  These both point to the natural human tendency to sin and act destructively.  The Bible also supports this in its claim that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23 ESV).  But a tendency to sin is not the same as an addiction to sin.

            In chapel this semester, the overall theme has been considering what we are “hungry” for.  We all have a longing for something that this world cannot satisfy.  Seeking to satisfy his hunger, St. Augustine writes “Such were the empty shadows on which I then fed, and was not fed.” (Augustine 52).  He sought relief from this hunger in sin to the point that he felt sick of “the foods that do not perish… because the more empty I was, the more nauseating I found them” (Augustine 45).  He lost the desire to obey and follow God, which in turn, led him to seek satisfaction in sin.  This is how we all develop an addiction to sin. 

Throughout writing this blog post, I thought of the song “I Have a Problem” by Beartooth.  I would not recommend the song, but I feel like it relates to the topic.  The lyrics say “God I wanna call you my father / I'm sick of drinking my life away / I can't remember anything / This isn't fun anymore”.  This part of the song relates to many ideas that were brought up, such as seeking satisfaction in God and sin and being addicted to destructiveness and sin.  It may have been St. Augustine’s rhetorical skills, but his writing helped me to realize addiction to sin as a part of human life.  I’m not saying that it is a good thing, or that we will ever be able to totally overcome it, but we need to try.

Title note:  When I sin, I often imagine God looking at me and asking “Why would you do a stupid thing like that doofus?”

Punk Monk

            The Rule of St. Benedict was an interesting reading and I found myself disagreeing with a lot of it.  I understand that it was not written for a college student to read.  It was written to serve as a set of rules for monks (I think.  We didn’t receive any background information on this text and I was too busy to spend my own time sifting through the internet to find some rare nugget of information that would help me understand this better).  After reading, I concluded that I would make a bad monk.  Nevertheless, the two major issues that I had were the authority of the Abbot and lack of individuality among the monks.

            The Abbot is basically the leader and overseer of a monastery.  He is responsible for “the welfare of the souls entrusted to him” (Benedict, 6).  This shows the amount of responsibility and authority that comes with being the Abbot.  Where I start to disagree with St. Benedict is when he writes on humility and obedience.  He wrote that “As soon as anything hath been commanded by the Superior they permit no delay in the execution, as if the matter had been commanded by God Himself” (Benedict, 10).  This seems dangerous to me.  In Romans, it says that “None is righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3: 10b (ESV).  Man is naturally sinful.  To blindly obey a man in authority as if what he commanded was from God seems like a bad idea.  St. Benedict later explains that the Abbot is elected based on the “merit of his life and the wisdom of his doctrine” (Benedict, 72) but no man is perfect (except for Jesus, but he is not the Abbot).  The amount of trust placed in the Abbot alone scares me a bit if I’m being honest.

            The second part of the reading that left me feeling uneasy was the lack of individuality among the monks.  St. Benedict writes against the monks doing what they have not been told to do, speaking without being spoken to, being quick to laughter, and many other things.  There are even rules about what they can wear.  I think that these rules strip the monks of their individuality.  This doesn’t sit well with me.  God has made every person different.  There has never been anyone like me or you and there never will be.  It reminds me of the show Veggie Tales when it would say, “God made you special, and He loves you very much”.  We were never intended to be robotic God-worshiping machines.  We are unique for a reason.

            Overall, I disagreed with a lot of The Rule of St. Benedict, but I think that’s okay.  Unlike the monks, I don’t think I should listen to and obey a man as if he were God.  To me, it seems like a lot of the honors students are afraid to disagree with the readings that we go through.  This makes me think of a quote by George S. Patton.  He said, “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking”.  This quote encouraged me to write about what I thought of the text, even if most other people disagree.

Heated Blankets Save Lives

I was excited yet nervous to read selections from the Quran this week.  I had heard that it was like the Bible in some ways, but I had also heard that it was radically different.  I was interested to find out for myself what was in it and how it compared to Christianity and the Bible.  While there were some similarities, there were differences in how man is to relate to nonbelievers and how man relates to God.

The intolerance of nonbelievers in the Quran was almost shocking to me as a Christian.  It is rather straight forward with its stance on this issue when it says “Thou canst not… love anyone who contends against God and His Apostle” (Surah 58, Page94).  Again, at the end of Surah 60, it says “Be not friends with people whom God has condemned!” (Surah 60, Page 979).  This is drastically different from the Christian perspective on this issue.  During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5: 44 ESV).  This is a difference that cannot be overlooked by either side.

In both religions, man is called to love God.  However, the Bible and Quran can help provide insight to the motivation behind this love.  The Quran mentions the men and women who “offer up unto God a goodly loan” and expect to “be amply repaid, and shall have a noble reward” (Surah 57, Page 954).  To me, this sounds as if man is motivated to serve God out of selfish desires, to be rewarded for their love.  Can this actually be considered love?  I would say no as I have never seen anyone truly love another for the sake of gaining something.  The converse of this can be seen in the Christian’s motivation for loving God.  The Bible says that “We love because he first loved us.” (1 John 4: 19 ESV).  Christians don’t love God for a reward.  Christians love God because of who He is and what He has done.  I was recently reminded of what God has done for me when I visited The Shrine of Christ’s Passion with a friend this past weekend.  The Shrine of Christ’s Passion has many life-sized bronze statues that depict Jesus’ journey from the last supper, to his death on the cross, to his resurrection.  The life-sized statues really helped to remind me of what God has done for me and the rest of humanity, even before we loved him.  Therefore, the Christian loves God.

The interaction between man and man and man and God is critical to both religions discussed in this blog post.  These relationships impact the way that others perceive and interact with these religions and their religious texts.  For both religions, it is important to know who to love and why one should love.

           

Title note:   I found comfort in my ignorance on the topic of the Quran.  Much like one finds comfort in a heated blanket.  However, it is sometimes necessary to leave our comfort zones as we cannot grow or accomplish anything in comfort.

Now I stare at people's shoes

Hello,

As a note to the reader, I would like to point out that I have nothing to say about the reading for this week.  I personally believe that if I have nothing to say, I shouldn’t say anything.  It seems like such a waste of time and energy.   However, for the sake of my grade in this class, I will make something up.  Feel free to consider this an apology for what you’re about to read.  Enjoy.

            Education is easily considered to be one of the most valuable things one could possess.  Why do people hold it hold it in such high regard?  Is it because of the opportunities that it presents to the student?  While it does provide a plethora of opportunities, it does so much more.  In my first blog post, I wrote about how Arthur Holmes has explained the importance of a liberal arts education in shaping the mind of an individual.  He is more concerned about what the education will do to an individual instead of what it will do for them.  I believe that St. Basil would agree with this too.

            For those who are unaware, St. Basil wrote on the use of pagan literature as a means to educate Christian children who were not mature enough to understand the Bible.  On the topic of pagan literature, he writes that “we should not accept everything without discrimination, but only what is useful” (Basil VIII).  He obviously believes that the pagan literature (such as works by Plato and Aristotle) is not completely true, but had truth in it.  It is to be polarized into what is useful, and what is useless.  This is a process that I have repeatedly gone through for over twelve years in my schooling.  Every source of information that I had learned from (until this year) is considered pagan.  I had never opened a Bible in a school for academic purposes until I started to attend Olivet, and even then, most of what I currently learn from is pagan.  Is this wrong?  No, it is not, as there are still things to be learned from literature that is not strictly Christian.  St. Basil even lists several Biblical figures such as Moses and Daniel who had studied, learned, and grew from pagan literature.

           Having established that a Christian’s education is not to be restricted to the Bible, my sequential mind begins to wonder what the next step is.  Suppose a student studies the pagan literature described by St. Basil.  How is the student to distinguish what aligns with the Bible without being mature enough to comprehend the Bible?  This seems almost paradoxical to me.  Our other reading, Go With God by Stanley Hauerwas, seems to provide an answer to this.  The student needs a mentor.  The student is to seek “professors who have reputations as intellectual mentors of Christian students” (Hauerwas 4).  If the student is not mature enough to understand the Bible, then it is their responsibility to find someone who is.

            I find it appropriate to close with a quote by Aristotle (one of the pagan authors referenced by St. Basil).  He said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.  It seems ironic how the pagan Aristotle perfectly explains St. Basil’s view of Christian interaction with the pagan literature of the world.

*Title Note:  Since I didn't like what I wrote I wanted to give you something worth considering.  You can tell a lot about a person by looking at their shoes.

Romans Response

It is very common for Christians to regard God as their friend.  While this may be true, it makes me very uncomfortable.  Through reading the book of Romans this week, I was reminded of the relationship between God and man.  While the denotation of the word “friend” can apply to one’s relationship with God, the connotation given to the word by our culture cannot.  The word “friend” seems to suggest that man is on the same level as God, that they are equals.  Paul, the author of Romans, would say otherwise.

While explaining that all people sin, Paul writes that “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Romans 3:18).  No one can understand the power of God on their own, and I feel like this fact gives us a better understanding of His power, but we are still only scratching the surface.  The point is that God’s power is unfathomable, and we are to fear Him for it.  In the beginning of the book, Paul refers to himself as “a servant of Christ Jesus” (Romans 1:1) and he later tells the reader that “you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness” (Romans 6:16b).  So, as Christians, we are called to be servants and slaves to Jesus and God’s commands.  This is drastically different from the connotation of the word “friend”. 

Not only is God omnipotent, but He has also done so much for his creation.  Considering all that He has done for us also helps to shape our perception of the relationship that we have.  Christians “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).  We are redeemed from our sin that sentences us to eternity in Hell, so that we may be in the presence of the almighty God.  God had and has no obligation to save us from our wicked ways and there is nothing that we can do to earn this salvation.  Because of this, we should not only fear God but also come before him with an attitude of thanksgiving and adoration. 

            So, what are we to do in light of the relationship between God and man?  Paul is rather straightforward with what we as Christians are to do.  He tells us to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual act of worship” (Romans 12:1b).  We are to worship God in all that we do in our lives.  This is no easy task though, and I believe that Tyler Joseph, the singer and lyricist for the band twenty one pilots, explains that in the song Ride.  He raps, “"I'd live for you, " and that's hard to do / Even harder to say when you know it's not true”.  We can say that we will live for God, but if we’re honest, we know that we will fail in doing so at some point.  This is where God’s grace comes in to save us yet again and we can praise Him even more for His mercy.  But “are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?  By no means!” (Romans 6:1-2b).  If one is a slave to obedience to God, then they are no longer a slave to their sin and this is how it should be.  We ought to live in fear and adoration of God for all that He is and has done.

Extra Note:  This is unrelated to the rest of the blog post, but I wanted to bring attention to a verse that reminded me of a conversation that I had with a friend.  Paul writes, “Let love be genuine.  Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good” (Romans 12:9).  This is the mark of a Christian.  My friend reminded me of what it looks like for love to be genuine.  To that person: I hope you know who you are and thank you.

Week 7 Response

            For the most part, I appreciated the Confucius reading selection, Chung-Yung, that was assigned this week.  Even the style and format was a refreshing change of pace from the typical readings.  Its structure made it easy to pick up and put down.  However, the part that I appreciated most about the reading were the numerous parallels between Chung-Yung and the Bible, even though it had no influence on Confucianism.

            As a Christian, it was fairly easy for me to notice similarities between Chung-Yung and the Bible.  The first major one that I noticed was a quote on the unwobbling pivot.  It was written that one should “Center oneself in the invariable” (Confucius, 105).  This reminded me of the parable that Jesus once told in the book  of Matthew.  It says, “24 Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.” (Matthew 7: 24-25 ESV).  In the parable, “the rock” is the invariable.  By centering himself in the invariable, the wise man was able to withstand the storm.  Now this leads to the question of what is invariable?  The parable is very clear that Jesus’ teachings are invariable and unchanging, but the Confucius writing is not so clear.  It is also vague when it says, “The man of breed pivots himself on the unchanging and has faith.” (Confucius, 115).  When I read this I immediately wondered what the man of breed is to have faith in.  There were several other similarities that I noticed such as a variation of The Golden rule (page 121), the importance of keeping your word (page 123), the harmony of parents (page 129), courtesy to foreigners (page 159), and holding material riches in low esteem (page 159).  The common trend that I found throughout all of these was that Confucius did not give reasons for doing these other than for being a man of breed.  Christians should be motivated to live this way to strive to live like Jesus did and to show God’s love to a broken world.

            Having established that there are undeniable similarities between Christianity and Confucianism we must now ask the question “so what?”.  Asking this question led me to wonder what the end goal (or telos for you Aristotle fans) is for these two things in question.  They both seem to point to some sort of universal or supreme good.  Both establishing that there is a standard of perfection that the average man is to strive towards.  From the Christian viewpoint, I can understand that this moral standard of perfection is unattainable by man, but that through Jesus’ sacrifice and God’s forgiveness, we can enjoy life free of the wages of sin, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6: 23 ESV).  As I attempted to consider the Confucianism viewpoint, I remembered a critical piece of information.  Christianity is a religion.  Confucianism is an ideology.  Christianity has an end goal, while Confucianism does not.  It is a system of philosophy.  It was intentional for Christianity to have an end goal and for Confucianism to lack one.

Week 5 Response

Imagine that you are playing a game of darts.  It would be fairly easy for you to hit the dart board.  Now imagine that you have been blindfolded and the board has been moved.  Would you even attempt to throw the dart?  Without having a goal or knowing where to aim, is it worth playing the game?  Aristotle understood the importance of teleology, which is “the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose” (Merriam-Webster), to the human life and wrote on it in his work, The Nicomachean Ethics.

It is proposed that the end goal for humanity is a theoretical “supreme good”.  When I read this, I immediately thought of the Law of Moses in the Old Testament of the Bible.  But the next rational question is whether this high standard of good is attainable.  In both the Biblical and ethical cases, I would say that it is not, but instead that it serves as a goal and a standard for our lives.  We can know that this ultimate good is the goal of humanity as “the highest good is clearly something final” (Aristotle 13).  This is teleology in its true form.  The apprehension of this supreme good and understanding of its acquirement.  Aristotle writes that “knowledge of this supreme good is of great importance for the conduct of life… we shall have a better chance of attaining what we want” (Aristotle 2).  And what exactly is it that we as people want?  Why happiness of course.

Happiness is the end goal for people.  We want other things as a means to happiness, but we want happiness for what it actually is.  But what exactly is happiness?  According to Aristotle, “different people give different definitions of it” (Aristotle 5).  As I am writing this, I would say that my definition of happiness is to have rest.  Happiness is not rest, but I want rest as a means to happiness.  Aristotle however, holds to a more sophisticated definition of happiness.  It is a “certain kind of activity of the soul in accordance with virtue” (Aristotle 22).

If virtue leads to happiness, then we must understand what it means to be virtuous.  There are two types of virtues.  There are intellectual virtues (such as wisdom, intelligence, and prudence) and moral virtues (such as liberty and temperance).  The possession of these virtues is what makes one virtuous, which is what leads to happiness according to Aristotle.  Intellectual virtues are obtained by experience and teaching.  Moral virtues, however, are obtained by practice.  We strengthen them by exercising them.

So to return to the dartboard illustration, virtue is like taking aim at the dart board, which is happiness, and knowing that the goal is to hit the board is like teleology.  If we have no goal, then we have no chance of attaining what we want (like happiness).  

Week 4 Response

Marilynne Robinson defines self-awareness in her essay Freedom of Thought as “the human ability to consider and appraise one’s own thoughts”.  This is, in a sense, philosophy.  Plato does exactly this in his dialogue The Republic.  He uses Socrates to propose ideas but then uses Glaucon to consider his own proposed ideas.  Throughout the two Plato readings, he focused on how mental and physical balance brings about a well-suited leader.

In Plato’s The Republic, there is a conversation for the creation of the perfect leader.  In the conversation, Socrates initially proposes mathematics for a course of study for the leader on the grounds that it develops reasoning, requires persistence, and is practical.  In the end, the subject does not really matter, so long that it develops the skills to think logically and critically.  This is similar to Holmes opinion on a liberal arts education.  He believes that it is more about the shaping of the individual rather than the vocational training.  While speaking of mathematics (specifically the effects of studying it), Socrates claims that the study is necessary “if he’s going to be a human being” (The Republic 201).  Seeking to answer the course question of what it means to be human, it seems to me that to be human is to develop and refine logical thinking, especially if one is to be a leader.

In speaking of the ideal leader, Socrates proposes that a sort of philosopher-king shall be best fit to rule.  The leader should first be a philosopher, then a king who is not eager to rule but rather “drudges in politics… not as though he were doing a thing that is fine, but one that is necessary” (The Republic 219).  A very intimate account of the creation of humans is given in Timaeus.  At one point in this account, the creators create a mouth for man.  It serves as an entry for what is necessary (like food), but also as an exit for what is best (like speech).  The philosopher-king serves as the mouth of the body that is governed.  He takes in responsibility when needed (entry) and also benefits the city with his actions (exit).  It is not beneficial for him (or her) to only focus on studies, nor is it right to focus solely on war and physical well-being.  The ruler must love both physical and mental labor if they are able to rule in the best manner.

In the writing Timaeus, Plato reiterates the importance of both the physical and mental.  In fact, it is the “one way to preserve oneself… so that each may be balanced by the other and so be sound” (Timaeus 84).  Timaeus continues to go on and mention souls.  The first two mentioned are the immortal (brain) and mortal (heart) souls.  The immortal revolves around intellect but the mortal revolves around sensations felt by the body.  Both are undeniably important.

I’ll conclude with a personal, but related note.  I have a friend who has recently started to work out every day in order to improve his physical state.  On the morning of the eighth day, he said “I awoke feeling better than I have in months.  I feel less agitated and my mental clarity is through the roof”.  This just shows that not only are the mental and physical aspects of the body are both important, but they are actually closely related to one another.

Week 3 Response

     I was honestly not looking forward to reading the epic poem The Iliad by Homer. I thought it was just another ancient story that was irrelevant to me. However, I was actually entertained while reading/listening to it. Homer’s descriptive imagery is almost breathtaking, but the poem is much more than a bunch of detailed mental pictures. The poem really captured the contrasting societies of the Greeks and Trojans. The Greeks were war-driven barbarians, while the Trojans were rather peaceful citizens.

     The aforementioned contrast is showed in the interactions that Achilles and Hector have with their respective families. Achilles only goes to his mother, Thetis, when he needs something (i.e. Greeks to start losing and new armor). On the other hand, his foil character, Hector, cares about his family. He worries about and fights for their safety. Before he heads to battle, he finds his wife and child so that he may speak to them again before he goes. In that conversation, Hector tells his wife “No, no, let the earth come piling over my dead body before I hear your cries, I hear you dragged away!” (211). This reminded me of the bible verse John 15:13 which says “There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.” (New Living Translation). Hector's devotion to fighting for his family until his foreshadowed death shows his immense love for them.

     Another distinction between the Greeks and Trojans is the motivation and justification for the war. The Greeks attacked Troy because Helen left her husband Menelaus (the Spartan king) for Paris (the Trojan prince). So because of the actions of a few people, the Greek city-states united to besiege Troy. To me personally, this does not seem like a very valid reason to wage war on another city for over nine years. This makes me think that the Greeks enjoyed fighting and were looking for an excuse to start fighting. The reasoning for the Trojans fighting can be best summarized when Helenus (son of Priam) declares “hard-hit as we are -necessity drives us on” (198). They did not choose to fight, but rather feel obligated to protect their city from savage invaders.

     A third situation where the Greek and Trojan societies are shown to be polar is in the treatment of Hector’s dead body. Achilles tied the body to his chariot and dragged it across the battlefield several times in a brutal display of power. The Trojan king, Priam, peacefully comes to Achilles to beg for his son’s body so that there may be a proper funeral. The savage nature that Achilles reveals in his attempt to mutilate Hector’s body reminded me of the novel The Lord of the Flies by William Golding. In that story, two tribes of boys form. The tribe led by Jack is rather savage and thrives on brutal acts of power (like the Greeks). Ralph’s tribe tries to hold to morals and values that they hold to (like the Trojans). In both stories, the uncivilized group overpowers the civilized group.

     So what does this all mean? While The Iliad is an entertaining story, it actually is a vessel that delivers information about two ancient societies. Like I mentioned in my blog post from last week, the entertaining plot of this work preserved it throughout thousands of years. Now we get to learn about the nature of the Greek city-states and the city of Troy.

Week 2 Response

For as long as I can remember, I have attended church.  As a kid, I remember being told about stories in the Bible, so when I heard that we would be reading the first twenty-three chapters of Exodus, I thought that this would be a fairly easy assignment.  However, as I went through the reading I found that I was confused.  There are things in the Bible that have and still do confuse me, but I’ve never been confused about a Bible story that I’ve heard a million times.

My first major point of confusion was in Exodus 1:10 when the pharaoh says, “Come, let us deal shrewdly with them [Israel], lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land” (English Standard Version).  The logic behind this really did not make sense to me.  If Israel was really so numerous and strong, wouldn’t it behoove the Egyptians to become allies rather than enemies?  Later on, God unleashes ten plagues over Egypt.  These plagues ruthlessly lay waste to the land and people of Egypt.  I found myself wondering why Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go after the first few plagues?  I then remembered that God promised Moses that He would “harden pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 7:3a ESV).  It seemed to me that God was controlling both sides of this conflict.  He was punishing the Egyptians for not letting the Israelites go, but wasn’t giving them the opportunity to let them go.

It was at this time that I also wondered why God found it necessary to punish Egypt so brutally.  As an aspiring engineer, my logical mind didn’t understand this.  Samuel C. Florman once defined engineering as “the art or science of making practical” and this did not seem very practical to me.  If he is truly all-powerful, couldn’t He have found a peaceful way to resolve the issues at hand?  In the midst of all these plagues, God claims that “I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your grandson how I have dealt harshly with the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them, that you may know that I am the LORD” (Exodus 10:1b-2).  Then it clicked.  In ancient times, stories were spoken and passed down through generations by tongue.  No one would pass on stories of peaceful resolutions, but rather mighty, divine displays power and deliverance.  If God had resolved the problems peacefully or prevented them altogether, I would not be reading about it today.  Since this story has been passed down for thousands of years, we all get to hear about God’s great power and we can know that He is the Lord (just like the verse says).

Modern Christians tend to feel uncomfortable with the Old Testament.  Marilynne Robinson acknowledges this in her book of essays When I Was a Child I Read Books.  She states that the Old Testament is treated as “greatly inferior to the Gospels,” but continues to say that “the significance of the Old Testament cannot be denied” (96).  Robinson is completely right in saying this.  God uses the Gospels to show his love for humanity, but his love means close to nothing without an understanding of His infinite power which we can experience through the Old Testament.

Week 1 Response

Both Arthur Holmes and John Dewey propose interesting ideas about thought and the development of the human mind in their respective writings The Liberal Arts: What and Why? and How We Think.  As the honors class looks to study “what it means to be human” (from the overview in the course syllabus), it is almost crucial that we begin with analyzing thought.  Dewey mentions that humans are commonly referred to as “the thinking animal” as it is what sets us as a species apart from life on this planet.

In his writing, Holmes states that “Man is a rational being” (37) and later continues with “To be rational is also to be analytic” (38).  Acting in a rational manner frees us from acting on instinct.  Dewey warns against acting on instinct while talking about reflective thought. Reflective thought is not through instinct, but rather is to be considered suspended judgment based on belief accompanied with evidence.  While it may be tempting to act on impulse, reflective thought is far more beneficial and we as humans are blessed with the ability to do so.

Holmes stresses the importance of a liberal arts education to the development of a person.  It is often stressed in his writing that a liberal arts education is more about shaping the individual rather than the vocational training that is received.  The word “liberal” comes from the Latin root “liber” which translates to “free”.  Dewey makes a rather bold statement toward the end of his writing in saying that “Genuine freedom, in short, is intellectual” (13).  This quote, in particular, reminded me of the novel 1984 by George Orwell.  In the novel, a tyrannical government succeeds at controlling thought.  At one point, the main character claims that “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows”.  True freedom lies in the mind of the individual.

Another topic that is touched on by both Holmes and Dewey is the topic of mental discipline and development.  Holmes criticizes a student for asking “What can I do with all this stuff anyway?” instead of asking “What will all this stuff do to me?” (32).  He believes that it is the responsibility of a liberal arts education to teach the student to be able to adapt because occupations and job obligations change over time.  He is concerned with the education leading to mental development instead of the attainment of factual knowledge.  Dewey’s perspective on education is similar and is shown when he writes that “The aim of education is precisely… a disciplined mind” (12).  The discipline and development mentioned go hand-in-hand with each other throughout the educational process.

A final topic to bring up is mostly related to Holmes’ writing.  The society that we live in puts such a large emphasis on being productive.  However, being human means far more than working because we were made to serve God in all that we do.  As a society, we sometimes forget that jobs are created for people and people are not created for jobs.  While vocational specialization is necessary for a liberal arts education, it should not be the main focus.  A liberal arts education should transcend the circumstantial vocational training that typical degrees offer.

To briefly conclude, a liberal arts education along with reflective thought should lead to mental discipline and development with the end goal of the discipline and development being intellectual freedom.  It is the freedom that comes with intelligent thought that sets humans apart from the world.

Hello,
This is a Blog created by Landon Beachy for the class HONR-110-01 at Olivet Nazarene University. I grew up in Hilliard, Ohio (a suburb of Columbus). I am studying chemical engineering. I really enjoy listening to music and playing the guitar and piano.