Journal - Day 4 02/08/2003 
Journals:
The Journals are still very poor. Basically, they just have the students questions. They include nothing from the tape or supplements and they pose no reactions. What I want most to see is a reaction to something and they attempt to articulate why they agree or disagree in their journal.
A question is sometimes use to veil their reaction and disagreement. By posing it as a question, they are manipulating their teacher to help them formulate a response to the issue.That's cheating
Still, a journal is only one form of expression. Many can express themselves better on paper while others are move verbally inclined. What we have here is non verbal and non writing.
Our Audio was Dr. Ravi Zacharias, "Dilemma of pain and death - the search for meaning". This was a pretty long sound byte. This is a very pessimistic snippet. One point is there is no hope because we've taken God out of our philosophy. Second, there is no meaning because we've taken God out of our philosophy. The snippet ends by noting life has no meaning but what we give it and then the example of Bertrand Russell's quote "I want this world not to have meaning because it frees me erotic and political desires".
Many religions are born as an answer to the question of "pain and death". One should ask, how does the philosophy deal with the question of "pain and death"? If it does not help, then is it relative to our life or is it just an exercise of our mind?
What the author has done in the chapter of the Renaissance is suggest during this time frame secularism has moved the culture from one of Christianity towards Humanism. At this point, only Leonardo Di Vinci recognizes the logical outworking of this type of existential philosophy. The end of the chapter strongly suggests the pessimism which will be usurer in later based upon the Renaissance.
What I missed, but the students brought out, was the <nature / grace>, <sensual / spiritual>, <upper / lower> story dichotomy problem. Even when reacting to the students questions, we missed the point. We made a nice "other" discovery, but we missed the author's point. This needs to be covered more thoroughly.
Questions Asked:
Discussions:
Discussions were much better today. We missed the authors point at times, but we got some milage from it, just the same.
The question was asked, "Why didn't Dante marry Beatrice since he loved her instead of whom ever". Why would he do such a thing? Instead of working on the sensual verses spiritual angle the author was attempting to make (note here the author said this problem would be clearly reflected in this example, where it fact, the example was the most troubling situation in the chapter), we spun off into a different angle, dealing with the analogy inself (from a morality and idealistic point of view) and not the author's issue.
The question posed back to the students was, "Should you always marry the person you love?" The consensus was you should always determine who your true love is and marry that person.
Well, what of those cultures whose marriages are arranged by their parents or by a match maker? I know of a young man born in India who met his future wife when he was five years old. The parents made an agreement. When the man was in his twenties and had been working in the US for a number of years, the time came for him to return home and get married to this now grown woman he had only met as a five year old. After they were married, the two of them returned to the US where his work was.
Yes, this happens today.
The basic consensus was if the culture was for parents or match makers to arrange the weddings, then this was okay. However, in this country, the culture is true love prevails.
So what we got out of that was basically, tolerance. The students were not going to object to an Indian or Jewish culture difference since that was "theirs" and it was not "ours". Unfortunately, we didn't expand upon my Indian friends who live in the US. That is, "their" culture is here, in this country, coexisting along side "ours". We should have gotten some mileage on how different cultures can coexist (pluralistic society) but the point was not made.
Alright, given it is right and proper for everyone to marry their true love and only for love, the logical outworkings for this proposition seem to be, "If we marry for love but later fall in love with someone else, should we ditch our current mate and marry our new love?"
At a magic moment, we finally got three opinions on something! Had we made any effort to, we surely could have gotten a consensus, but as the opportunist teacher with future plans, I didn't want it to happen! Filially, we have three world views on a single issue uttered by the students! These world views needed to remain unresolved so we could test other issues against these three world views in future lessons.
- Society determines what is right and wrong: If the culture you live in believes it is alright and even proper to divorce your unhappy spouse and marry the one your love the most, then this is the right thing to to.
- Personal Integrity: When you get married you made a promise. You should always keep your promises, even those foolishly made, and never make a promise you are not willing to keep no matter what. (Be true to one's self)
- Moral Authority: You should not divorce because divorce is wrong.
When we talked about the pluralistic society, no one quite picked up on how dynamically opposed the philosophies could be with each other. By way of example, we used....
- Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life
We are still in the pluralistic mode and the issue is not resolved.- Pro-slavery vs Pro-Abolitionist
Before / after the civil war and what was that time between but the civil war / pluralistic society
Assignments:
Beatrice was very likely as unobtainable to Dante as a movie celebrity is to you and me. They may never have even spoke to each other. In fact, if they had conversed, it may very well be that Dante may not have liked her very much at all. We basically took on the morality of Dante's particular situation during our discussions. We didn't resolve it, but we mauled it somewhat.
What made this remarkable was the "effect" this had on Dante because his experience is really not unlike the experiences of most people. Dante was a writer. A very good writer. Dante, you, and I may have a similar experience and we may all write about it, but people read Dante's writing. In fact, hundreds of years later, they still do.
What the author was attempting to point out was another facet of our Plato verses Aristotle debate. (Doesn't it seem strange we keep going back to those two particular Philosophers and their school of thought?)
Since Plato's time his ideas held sway until Aquinas led the world to Aristotle's point of view in the 13th century and now Dante, through his writings, shows the world is heading back toward Plato's point of view again. Why, it does appear we have gone full circle, does it not?
Plato was much interested in the "First Person" , which is explained more fully in "The Way of Reason - Rationalism" section, while Aristotle held to the "Third Person".
This problems considered by the "First Person" perspective are described by many philosophers, such as Descartes (he gave us the term "I think, therefore I am"), over the ages with many terms. They are not always exactly the same thing, but they are very close. Some of the terms are:
- love born in the heart vs love sustained in the mind
- mind vs body Dualism of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes (spirit vs matter, soul vs body)
- Epistemological Dualism (noumenon vs phenomena)
- Religious Dualism (natural vs supernatural)
- Metaphysical Dualism (light vs darkness, good vs evil)
- Pragmatic verses Idealism (How would these two views change how Dante dealt with his dilemma?)
Later philosophers, sliding even further down Aristotle's side of the roof (water shed principle), will run into some very tough snags which are called "The Egocentric Predicament". These later Philosophers do so in an attempt to avoid the dualism problems we've touched on. You see, existentialism or materialism philosophies do not have dualism issues. Existentialist and materialist use a completely different box to get caught in.
Note: You should note Aristotle and Plato had similar understandings of the dualism issues since at the time both were very near the pinnacle of the roof (water shed principle). This is why we include Aristotle (an Existentialist) as a Philosopher who dealt with Dualism issues with the while all the rest of the Existential Philosophers who come later do not.
But for now, Dante and his relationship with his wife and Beatrice is an analogy in real life which demonstrate the dualism in philosophic thinking.
Day 4 - Chapter 3 - The Renaissance
[ There are two types of love in the world: one that takes and one that gives. This is common to all types of love -- not only towards man. Each person can love a friend, family, children, scholarship, art, motherland, one's idea, oneself, and even God -- from either of these two points of view. Even those types of love which by common acknowledgment are of the highest category can carry this dual character.
by Mother Maria Skobtsova ]
Is the statement above true or not?
What I'll do is toss out some quotes extracted from hither and yon to promote discussion and thinking. I will not be expressing my opinion at this time, but just giving food for thought.
[]
Romantic love This lover thinks constantly about the loved one, is jealous, unrealistic, will tolerate anything, is sexually attracted by physical appearance, needs repeated reassurance he/she is loved in return. Typically lasts a few months or a few years Best friend or companionate love This lover enjoys the companionship and intimacy of a close friendship. It is a comfortable, slowly developing, trusting, committed relationship, not intense excitement, desperation, or sexual obsessions. Unselfish love The lover is devoted and self-sacrificing to the loved one, gives without expecting anything in return, is gentle, caring, and dutiful. Logical love The lover carefully selects the "right person" logically, looking for someone with compatible interests, similar education and religion, a harmonious personality, common values, and long-term goals. Game-playing love This person may be charming but is hardly a lover; he/she merely enjoys the dating game. He/she relishes the meeting, the impressing, the seducing, the challenge of a conquest but usually makes it clear there is little or no long-term commitment to the other person.
Do you agree with these different types of love and their definitions? Are there more? Are some of these different sides of the same love and not separate kinds at all?
[Women give sex to get love; men give love to get sex.]
Very discouraging quote, don't you think? Is it based upon any truth at all? How does it reflect with your experience. More importantly, is it right morally?
[People who are sensible about love may be incapable of it. ]
Is that a valid statement or is it nonsense? Does it speak of a kind of love? Does this statement suggest love is not a natural characteristic or does it suggest we can lose this thing called love somewhere along the line?
[
]
Type of Love Intimacy Passion Commitment Casual friendships/non-love no no no Liking--very good friends yes no no Infatuation no yes no (only temporary) Empty "love" no yes yes Romantic love no no yes Companionate love yes no yes Fatuous love/whirlwind courtships no yes yes Consummate love yes yes yes
[There isn't any formula for loving. You learn to love... by paying attention and doing what one thereby discovers has to be done.
-Aldous Huxley ]
I will give in and tell you I do indeed agree with Aldous Huxley. Don't let that be reason to take off the thinking cap! Does I Corinthians 13 give us a different perspective of love or is it another way of saying the same thing?
Day 4 - Chapter 3 - The Renaissance
[Hardly a day passes in which one does not hear another example of the erosion of personal responsibility which continues in this country. Whether it is holding gun manufacturers responsible for the destruction caused by those who use their weapons, blaming cigarette makers for the cancers suffered by their customers, or absolving criminals of their acts because of other influences such as society, family, or bodily chemistry, the idea that the individual is the primary causal force in his or her life fades more and more into the background. This attitude fosters the notion that people are inherently incapable of caring for themselves and justifies the actions of an increasingly paternalistic government. Such a government considers its primary role to be that of protecting people from themselves and/or providing values which they are supposedly unable to achieve on their own.
How did this view of causality -- one which ignores the role of the individual person and which subverts the very foundation of any view of morality -- gain such prominence? How can it be combatted and a radically different view of causality -- one which acknowledges personal causal efficacy and establishes the moral basis for freedom -- be installed in its stead?
Russell Madden]
The question of the earth's existence extending even before time began verses an earth or universe created by something which was non caused isn't necessarily a Humanist verses non-Humanist world view or philosophy. There are two schools of thought when it comes to Causality.
When we consider Causality we normally think of cause and effect. There is another school of thought which suggest the mature way to view the universe is as a constant state of motion. In their point of view, cause and effect are just reactions to this constant motion. This point of view, of constant motion, is called the "Successionist Theory" of Causality.
There are reasons why one would prefer the "Successionist Theory" of Causality. as opposed to the "Generative Theory".
One can't help but notice if you asked just about anyone, they would claim they believe strongly in the "Generative Theory" of Causality, that is, for every effect, there was something which caused it to happen. But you just watch, and sooner or later you will see these same people profess non caused events always happen to them. This is the "Successionist Theory" of Causality being worked into their lives. We seem to have more than a sin verses grace dualism problem here.
Would you like a simple answer to the question for a change? Ever hear of "outcome based" something or other? Normally, "outcome based education". The Humanist begins with man as the center of the universe and uses philosophical points which support their conclusions. If the philosophical point hurts the Humanist conclusion, then it is rejected. There you go - "outcome based philosophy".
Day 4 - Chapter 3 - The Renaissance
[It is the Eastern view that all religions, despite diverse beliefs and practices, are merely different paths leading to the same ultimate reality.]
The author suggested, without providing much material to back it up, that we can't have a pluralistic society for very long. To him, a pluralistic society was just a transitional phase between two schools of thought. At the heart of this question is another, why can't we be hold to our beliefs and be tolerant of others with their opposing beliefs?
There are at least four different types of Pluralism.
Cherished Pluralism This type of Pluralism promotes tolerance and denies anyone has any knowledge of any Universal Truths. This excludes Universal Truths not only about religion but also Universal Truths concerning moral law and even Causality. Empirical Pluralism Dealing with differing, conflicting views. This may be handled well or it may not be. Normally, one culture is resistant to the changes and another culture is, in a sense, invading. Philosophical Pluralism This is a world view which is advanced as superior to all the religious and cultural views. All the other views are thus subservient. Religious Pluralism This describes the amount of integration the religion has within the culture. Christianity, Islam, and Humanism integrate themselves into society and they are not tolerant of each other. Other religions, like the New Age religions are very tolerant of others, as our quote above suggest.
Now let's think about this a little bit. Does it seem possible a Pluralistic society can exist which has any values which have, shall we say, any value? Does it not appear there are but four choices before us.
The funny thing about the Pluralistic Society is, the tolerant groups are eventually sidelined and become irrelevant. The most intolerant groups (the squeaky wheel) eventually win out by pressing their view (world, philosophical, cultural, or religious) over all other groups. Any way you go, in the end, the Pluralistic Society eventually dies as one Philosophical view reigns supreme - for a while.....
Note: You COULD be a real pessimist and note ALL non Pluralistic Societies
are transitions either into or coming out of a Pluralistic Society.
Day 4 - Chapter 3 - The Renaissance