"In a theological perspective, to say that God is creator is to say that he is the one who brings about both actuality and possibility. God, in other words — and no matter what problems this statement makes for developing a meaningful theological discourse — is prior to both actuality and possibility: each reflects only an aspect of the absolute, eschatological reality that God is, which, being eschatological, is not (yet) available to us as an object of knowledge. If the world determines the horizon of actuality within which alone human life can be lived, i.e., if it is the ground of everything that is or that can be, then the actuality of the world cannot itself be determinative for the absolute actuality of God which, in this sense, is a kind of actuality beyond actuality..."
(from God and Being by George Pattison.)
Monday, February 13, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
A few basic philosophical assertions that I hold...
I take it to be the case that:
1) There are absolutes (epistemological, ethical, or otherwise) which can be believed to be true.
However, 2) these beliefs cannot be determined to be true by any rational, empirical, common-sense, or practical argument.
3) At best, we can only have pragmatically agreed upon beliefs, or beliefs which seem factually consistent enough to count as knowledge, or existentially grounded beliefs which supersede the means of analyzation mentioned above in 2.
Thus, 4) I am not a relativist. I can perhaps be called a skeptic, at least in epistemological terms. But I am not a relativist in any sense other than a weak form of cultural relativism, to which I assume everyone would adhere: different groups of people develop different views of the world, and it is not always clear which of those views is the most consistent and counts as knowledge.
However, 5) I would say that no human knowledge can be properly called 'Truth' (with a capital T), inasmuch as human beings are not in a position to make such claims, due to our limitations. This, however, does not impinge upon our ability to make statements about a great deal of the world, and what takes place in it, that count as knowledge, and are therefore called 'facts'.
But, 6) I would hesitate to say, as some philosophers do, that such a view is banal or unhelpful. I think that there is a great deal of importance and interest in recognizing our limitations —- epistemological and otherwise -— since it is only by clarifying our abilities and intentions as human beings that we can properly relate to the world. For how can one be certain that one is acting rationally, or ethically, if one has not taken into account one's own limitations and how that might impact the view one has of the world?
Finally, 7) it is within this recognition of human limitation that I believe a connection to the transcendent or supernatural may best be discovered. This is certainly not a proof, but it seems reasonable to suggest that it is only when we are most fully cognizant of what we do not know that we are also most open to that which supersedes knowledge. This is not a claim about how God may or may not interact with the world; it is a claim about a posture of human beings that is best suited to recognizing God.
Perhaps these are unsatisfactory assumptions... if you think that, keep in mind they are still being formulated. But I welcome your responses.
1) There are absolutes (epistemological, ethical, or otherwise) which can be believed to be true.
However, 2) these beliefs cannot be determined to be true by any rational, empirical, common-sense, or practical argument.
3) At best, we can only have pragmatically agreed upon beliefs, or beliefs which seem factually consistent enough to count as knowledge, or existentially grounded beliefs which supersede the means of analyzation mentioned above in 2.
Thus, 4) I am not a relativist. I can perhaps be called a skeptic, at least in epistemological terms. But I am not a relativist in any sense other than a weak form of cultural relativism, to which I assume everyone would adhere: different groups of people develop different views of the world, and it is not always clear which of those views is the most consistent and counts as knowledge.
However, 5) I would say that no human knowledge can be properly called 'Truth' (with a capital T), inasmuch as human beings are not in a position to make such claims, due to our limitations. This, however, does not impinge upon our ability to make statements about a great deal of the world, and what takes place in it, that count as knowledge, and are therefore called 'facts'.
But, 6) I would hesitate to say, as some philosophers do, that such a view is banal or unhelpful. I think that there is a great deal of importance and interest in recognizing our limitations —- epistemological and otherwise -— since it is only by clarifying our abilities and intentions as human beings that we can properly relate to the world. For how can one be certain that one is acting rationally, or ethically, if one has not taken into account one's own limitations and how that might impact the view one has of the world?
Finally, 7) it is within this recognition of human limitation that I believe a connection to the transcendent or supernatural may best be discovered. This is certainly not a proof, but it seems reasonable to suggest that it is only when we are most fully cognizant of what we do not know that we are also most open to that which supersedes knowledge. This is not a claim about how God may or may not interact with the world; it is a claim about a posture of human beings that is best suited to recognizing God.
Perhaps these are unsatisfactory assumptions... if you think that, keep in mind they are still being formulated. But I welcome your responses.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Thoughts on Jeff Keuss' "Freedom of the Self"
Jeff Keuss teaches at SPU and at the Fuller NW campus, and I was his TA for his Christian Ethics class a couple years ago. His book, "Freedom of the Self," came out in 2010 and I wrote some thoughts down after reading it. I haven't done anything with them yet, so I decided to post them here. Read on if interested in what is essentially a theological book review...
Keuss' book is a response to his impression that, like the account of the procrustean cropping of a Rembrandt painting with which he begins, theology is often guilty of "favoring doctrinal method and form that delimits and at times violates the very thing that theological method is hoping to adequately 'frame' and celebrate." (p. 2) Perceived as a corrective to one area of improper delimiting, Keuss' book "is concerned with the loss of the self amidst what is happening in the emergent and missional discussions." (p. 2) He believes this loss of the 'kenotic self' potentially undermines these otherwise valuable trajectories within contemporary Christianity. He wants to provide "a deep model for authentic personhood" that reflects "the full canvas of our humanity." (Ibid)
Keuss' book is a response to his impression that, like the account of the procrustean cropping of a Rembrandt painting with which he begins, theology is often guilty of "favoring doctrinal method and form that delimits and at times violates the very thing that theological method is hoping to adequately 'frame' and celebrate." (p. 2) Perceived as a corrective to one area of improper delimiting, Keuss' book "is concerned with the loss of the self amidst what is happening in the emergent and missional discussions." (p. 2) He believes this loss of the 'kenotic self' potentially undermines these otherwise valuable trajectories within contemporary Christianity. He wants to provide "a deep model for authentic personhood" that reflects "the full canvas of our humanity." (Ibid)
Saturday, January 21, 2012
more thoughts about hope...
I've been thinking about what it means to be hopeful. We often hear, especially in Christian circles, about 'faith, hope, and love' but while faith and love get lots of attention, hope seems to be more often an undercurrent that is mentioned abstractly, but without knowing exactly where it fits or what to do with it. We are told to keep hoping, or how important hope is, but what is it exactly? I'm becoming more and more convinced that the order should be reversed (love, hope, faith) and that dialectical relationships (where all three influence and modify the others) are the best way to conceive these concepts. But I won't get into all that here.
For now, I want to suggest that hope is intimately and necessarily related to possibility. Without possibility, there can be no hope. What I mean is this: hope seems to entail that a person's existence might turn out differently. If nothing can turn out differently, then there does not seem to be any reason for hope. So, in a sense, we might say that as long as there is the possibility of genuine change (which I think most people would agree is the case), then there is the potential for hope.
For now, I want to suggest that hope is intimately and necessarily related to possibility. Without possibility, there can be no hope. What I mean is this: hope seems to entail that a person's existence might turn out differently. If nothing can turn out differently, then there does not seem to be any reason for hope. So, in a sense, we might say that as long as there is the possibility of genuine change (which I think most people would agree is the case), then there is the potential for hope.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
too funny not to re-post...
Here's a humorous, modified-for-2012 version of a quote by Pascal I recently discovered on the Faith and Theology blog:
"All of man's misfortune comes from one thing, which is not knowing how to sit quietly without an iPad."
Addendum: Insert iPhone, Blackberry, or whatever else you want... the point is, many of us are losing the ability to simply enjoy our lives with simplicity. I'm not against technology at all, but I do think it has profoundly affected - especially in the last 50 years or so - our levels of comfortability with ourselves as biological, spatio-temporally limited, finite, human beings. Human beings are, it appears (at least in the Western 'first-world'), less content than ever with ourselves as humans.
In fact, given current thinking on transhumanism and post-humanism, bioethics, etc, I think a strong argument could be made that one of the primary uses of technology has become precisely the attempt to change, 'fix', or transcend ourselves as humans. Essentially, humanity has, in many ways, become determined to use technology to overcome what we dislike about our human-ness. In that sense, technology has become, for many, a very real religious force.
No wonder some young people are claiming that the internet is their religion. I believe the quote is "humanity connected is God." While I disagree with that statement theologically, the point here is simply this: given what we appear to be using technology to accomplish, I believe this quote may someday be nonsensical.
What I mean is this: if we get to the point where technology really becomes the means by which we are able to remove all of those aspects of our humanity that we dislike, it seems very difficult to determine whether or not what remains really is still 'humanity'. So, if technology, including the internet, is slowly changing humanity into something else, something post-human, then it makes no sense to say that humanity connected is God, because there is no 'humanity' to connect. Whatever is connecting at that point, it will be something else.
Some people, like Ray Kurzweil, seem to welcome that idea. Me, I'm not so optimistic. Obviously, it goes against my own theological beliefs. But aside from that, it's hard for me to be excited about any trend that seems to anticipate the demise of my species. I suppose there are arguments supporting such an idea, but I can't help wonder whether those who are excited about the idea of a post-human world are naively assuming that they will somehow have a role to play in that world.
Which, of course, is completely illogical. There is no reason to think the post-human world will privilege computer technicians or quantum physicists over anyone else. Humanity will have fulfilled its evolutionary role and will most likely become extinct, or will be used by higher species in a manner somewhat similar to the way we currently employ other animals. Call me crazy, but that's not really a future I feel excited about.
"All of man's misfortune comes from one thing, which is not knowing how to sit quietly without an iPad."
Addendum: Insert iPhone, Blackberry, or whatever else you want... the point is, many of us are losing the ability to simply enjoy our lives with simplicity. I'm not against technology at all, but I do think it has profoundly affected - especially in the last 50 years or so - our levels of comfortability with ourselves as biological, spatio-temporally limited, finite, human beings. Human beings are, it appears (at least in the Western 'first-world'), less content than ever with ourselves as humans.
In fact, given current thinking on transhumanism and post-humanism, bioethics, etc, I think a strong argument could be made that one of the primary uses of technology has become precisely the attempt to change, 'fix', or transcend ourselves as humans. Essentially, humanity has, in many ways, become determined to use technology to overcome what we dislike about our human-ness. In that sense, technology has become, for many, a very real religious force.
No wonder some young people are claiming that the internet is their religion. I believe the quote is "humanity connected is God." While I disagree with that statement theologically, the point here is simply this: given what we appear to be using technology to accomplish, I believe this quote may someday be nonsensical.
What I mean is this: if we get to the point where technology really becomes the means by which we are able to remove all of those aspects of our humanity that we dislike, it seems very difficult to determine whether or not what remains really is still 'humanity'. So, if technology, including the internet, is slowly changing humanity into something else, something post-human, then it makes no sense to say that humanity connected is God, because there is no 'humanity' to connect. Whatever is connecting at that point, it will be something else.
Some people, like Ray Kurzweil, seem to welcome that idea. Me, I'm not so optimistic. Obviously, it goes against my own theological beliefs. But aside from that, it's hard for me to be excited about any trend that seems to anticipate the demise of my species. I suppose there are arguments supporting such an idea, but I can't help wonder whether those who are excited about the idea of a post-human world are naively assuming that they will somehow have a role to play in that world.
Which, of course, is completely illogical. There is no reason to think the post-human world will privilege computer technicians or quantum physicists over anyone else. Humanity will have fulfilled its evolutionary role and will most likely become extinct, or will be used by higher species in a manner somewhat similar to the way we currently employ other animals. Call me crazy, but that's not really a future I feel excited about.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
back in Oxford...
Well, it's a new year, and time to get focused on the research and writing again after a nice three-week break (although, as with most vacations, I need some time to recover from my break!). So, I'm turning my attention again to focus on some articles I need to write, and begin to prepare myself for the next term, which will include in-depth readings of Aristotle's Metaphysics and Hegel's Science of Logic. Yikes! :-) I hope to blog more regularly this year, and I will probably be including a lot of ruminations on what I'm reading, so stay tuned for more philosophical ramblings in 2012...
Saturday, December 31, 2011
the new year is upon us...
Well, another year ends and a new one begins, and I start another year of life (my b-day is new year's eve, in case you didn't know). I have at least one resolution for 2012: write more substantial blog posts here. We'll see if that materializes or not. :-) Here's to the last year on the Mayan calendar! The end is nigh. hehe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)