I went to hear a lecture yesterday, and the speaker spoke about the need for self-contempt. He said that without self-contempt, we cannot have a sense of morality proper. We cannot have a sense of reverence without self-comtempt, and the difference between self-contempt and reverence is the space where morality resides.
He also went on about how modern Americans don't have a sense of self-contempt. They don't understand a moral ought, and that modern American christians are the most aggregious offenders.
I've always considered self-respect the root of all disciple. I rattled off that phrase too quickly, so I doubt it's my own, but after listening to him, I'm starting to understand that there is something to be said for self-contempt. Do you think that we have a sense of reverence, in a properly severe way?
Do you think self-contempt is necessary for morality?
[ March 18, 2005, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I'd call it humility, not self-contempt. But yeah, I think humility is necessary for moral discernment.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Can you define "self-contempt" in this context? If it means realistically viewing oneself as an extremely small cog in the universe, and that the universe doesn't revolve around you, then yes I'm all for it.
If it means viewing oneself as worthless and unloveable, and low self-esteem, than I'm not.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wouldn't call it self-contempt-- contempt is too loaded a phrase.
I do tend to think that people are not as nearly critical (exacting, examining) of their motives as they should be.
What do you mean by reverence?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*points up*
I'm with AJ.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jeniwren, he made a point to talk about self-contempt, not humility, because with humility, there isn't a sense of unquenched striving that accompanies a moral ought.
He made a specific argument that this drive to increase self-esteem is misplaced and awful, and the education should be concerned with cultivating reverance through great art. He came right next to so many truths in this hour and a half lecture that maybe he is right on and I just have figure out how it works.
_________________
Scott,
Reverence, a sense of the superiority of something that is more you than you are. That's weird phrase, but I think that's the sense in which he used the word.
self-contempt, a sense of inferiority with respect to that which you revere, and since the thing you revere is a superior you. A sort of a hostility towards your inadequacy.
[ March 18, 2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I've been on the "moral ought" bandwagon a while. Especially about little things, usually revolving around honest and up-front disclosure and agreement on context (yes, wedding planning has me thinking about this). I know that's not really your main point in this thread, but let me derail. I find that 'ought', in any sort of ethical/existential/free will context, has gone into disuse. 'Ought' has become almost solely a term used in relation to an external condition.
It bugs me. I think we've started to overcompensate for prior long stretches of time where 'can' was severely restricted as a concept, and there needs to be some correction. The correction needs careful consideration, and I think that conservatives in this country, as a homogenous voting block, are not showing signs of this. Then again, liberals, as a homogenous voting block, haven't gotten off the 'can' bandwagon yet...
-Bok
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I think it is necessary. It allows for evaluating oneself appropriately. In order to act around others in a way that promotes the greatest good, we have to see how our interactions affect other people. If we are blind to any harm we might be causing, because we lack any means of seeing ourselves as acting badly or inappropriately, then we will be more likely to hurt rather than help.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:He also went on about how modern Americans don't have a sense of self-contempt. They don't understand a moral ought, and that modern American christians are the most aggregious offenders.
Of course.
Just one more thing for Christians to feel guilty about.
[ March 18, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think "self contempt" can be defined in such a way as to be a necessary quality for moral beings, but "self contempt" as I would interpet the meaning of the phrase isn't necessary.
My dictionary links "Contempt" with "Despise" and defines "despise" as "to disdain or detest, or to look on as negligible or worthless". I think those things are far from necessary to have a sense of true morality. In fact, if you detest yourself, it seems your morality would inevitably become unnecessary martyrdom or self abasement. This route seems to be the way to the morality of the self-flagellants (taken to one extreme), and I reject that view of life.
Personally, I think an honest moral code must include yourself as much as others. In other words, a healthy view of life lends oneself the exact same respect as is deserved by strangers. If you have contempt for yourself, you have skewed the balance.
I think one of the hardest things to do is to take honest joy in your own accomplishments. Most people are slow to share their success or feelings of mastery of something for fear of appearing to brag. Sure, you can take self-worth to the extreme and fall into cockiness, hubris, and disdain of others, but falling to the opposite extreme isn't a healthy safeguard.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:education should be concerned with cultivating reverance through great art.
I'm not sure what this means, Irami. Can you explain?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Scott, His bit was that the wisdom of life teaches life, and that great Art, and he had very specific views on what constitutes great art, is an intensifier of life. Great Art puts us in the presence of something that is more full of life than we are, and through attending to that presence, we learn. Education should be the opening of the mind to the presence of life. He talked about the pain and joy and primordial longing and excess and contradiction wonderfully harnessed by the law-like structure of the written word, and even more expertly done in the epic poem.
To tie this back to OSC, I Hart's Hope is a piece of great art. East of Eden is a work great art. But I don't know that he'd agree with any of those judgements. We are getting far a field.
Advice for Robots: He had a great respect for mideval Christians, those who felt the reverence and lived in constant and necessary fear of making the wrong decision, or indecision, and being cursed to eternal damnation.
[ March 18, 2005, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think Great Science does the same thing as Great Art, and to have only one without the other makes life bland. But that's just my opinion.
AJ
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think one's ability to respond to "great art" (which in itself is an extremely subjective phrase) comes from the life that one has within oneself. In other words, the response you have to something you find deep and beautiful speaks as much if not more to the amount of life and depth and beauty you have within yourself to be called forth as it does from any innate teaching that art itself can do.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I have a very big problem with the use of "contempt" in this way. There are very few people I would think deserve my "contempt" and if I could honestly lump myself into that few, I might as well commit suicide. I think basic morality is born of fairness and any "higher" morality is born of compassion and love. Compassion and love can lead to self sacrifice, but using even self sacrifice as a starting point seems unhealthy to me. Using self-contempt as a starting point seems downright perverse.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Now is "Great Art" subjective because we can't agree, or is it essentially subjective. I think it's the first one.
BJ, he sees science as wrong-headed way to make intelligible what doesn't give itself to intellect alone. In other words, what makes the story of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel powerful are not that we can trace our DNA back to them. What seperates a family from four people sitting in a room is nothing that science can teach us.
Rochfoucald said it well when he said, paraphrase, "We would no nothing of love unless we had read a story about it." I don't think it's that simple, but I do think there is an intensifying aspect to a good story.
_______
It's funny, Karl, he mentioned compassion specfically yesterday, and how compassion is the presence of pain. HE said it is pain. I don't quite understand, but he mentioned the fact that newspapers put pain on the front cover. Pain in all of its forms. Like I said, I don't get exactly how compassion is pain, but the guy is considered, so I'm going I may send him an e-mail and see if I can get an answer.
[ March 18, 2005, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Irami, may I recommend Gary Thomas' book "Sacred Pathways"? It is patently Christian in orientation, but Thomas's discussion of nine pathways of reverence to God may resonate with you. In particular, the Sensate path, which discusses loving God (or experiencing reverence) through the senses -- including experiencing great art and music may really ring a bell.
I'm primarily a sensate, fwiw. Experiencing great art, for me, shows me how small I am, and how great God is. Exceptional music does the same thing. Fine literature too. Thomas himself is least a sensate, so his empathy for that path is pretty minimal. He's more a naturalist and an intellectual. Being outside and studying really brings him to reverence.
The point of the book is that everyone experiences reverence differently, and that the same path doesn't fit all people.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Exactly Karl. I mean if something that is supposed to be "Great Art" doesn't resonate in your inner being, and you don't feel anything at all for it, even after study, other than the driest academic knowledge. I don't believe you are automatically morally deficient.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Great Art puts us in the prescence of something that is more full of life than we are
"Look class, here is DeFaugh's sculpture, 'Agony of a Midsummer.'"
:pause:
"It looks like a piece of poop!"
__________
I don't know, Irami. That point of view seems a little pretentious.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Your guy has completely missed the point of science. If science is dry and boring and not beauty and awe, there's something wrong. It has nothing to do, necessarily with understanding interpersonal interactions, it has everything to do with realizing you *are* just a speck in the universe which is what the dude was going for. Somone who can't stand in awe at the beauty and intricacy of the structure that is DNA, is equally as morally deficient as someone who can't appreciate Great Art.
AJ
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Bok:
The handy thing about “can” is that it can be argued, proven, and legislated. It’s hard to argue “ought” without assuming a common set of morals, and that’s a big stumbling point in a large, diverse society.
I would tend to give “ought” to the conservatives, but it does have a lot of liberal in it. But that’s based on my own idea of “ought.” I don’t think I fit into Irami’s lecturer’s elite set of people who conform to non-offender status.
Irami, I wonder what your lecturer thinks of the concepts of repentance and mercy.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I disagree with this notion that one should look down on themselves as a guiding factor in morality.
I think people take on the roles they assign for themselves to a large extent. I think if a person believes themselves to be a good and moral person they will strive to remain a good and moral person.
This goes beyond morality as well. If you think you're smart, you will strive to BE smart. If you think you are strong, you will strive to BE strong.
And while this can all be taken too far and lead to unjustified arrogance (especially without a philosophical core) if you concider yourself stupid, weak, immoral and worthless it WILL become a self fullfilling prophecy.
The gentleman who gave your lecture was full of caca de vaca.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jeni, the guy went on a tirade about how mediocre art seeks to produce some sort of affect on the listener. To evoke something, and that in that way is sort of pornographic. *gets notes* I have written down, "The pornography of pain."
Since I have my notes out, he said that our absence of reverence is showed through our disregard of language and history, properly understood. I don't understand language and history properly understood, but I don't think it's the same way we currently use those terms.
Advice for Robots, He said, "vulgar American Christianity today..." He almost spat out the word vulgar. Take it as you'd like.
______
This guy was opinionated as heck, but in an honest way. There was something considered about him, as if he was as hard on himself as he was on the audience.
Here was the thrust of his talk. Art is only possible by the breaking of the revealed heart. If it's not possible in our modern age, it's because we don't have a sense of reverence/self-contempt to be broken, because once we have the sense of reverence, then we will strive necessarily always fail-- because if we succeed, then the disappears as the ought only exists in the future and the is is always inferior to the ought-- and that is growth and life.
That's the two sentence version.
[ March 18, 2005, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Main Entry: vul·gar Pronunciation: 'v&l-g&r Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Latin vulgaris of the mob, vulgar, from volgus, vulgus mob, common people 1 a : generally used, applied, or accepted b : understood in or having the ordinary sense <they reject the vulgar conception of miracle -- W. R. Inge> 2 : VERNACULAR <the vulgar name of a plant> 3 a : of or relating to the common people : PLEBEIAN b : generally current : PUBLIC <the vulgar opinion of that time> c : of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind 4 a : lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : COARSE b : morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : GROSS c : ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : PRETENTIOUS 5 a : offensive in language : EARTHY b : lewdly or profanely indecent synonym see COMMON, COARSE - vul·gar·ly adverb
lol, I'm thinking he was down at meaning 4 or 5 and for got about the previous three meanings.
I also got a mental image as I read that, of the Steel pre-fab construction churches, semi-eyesores that now dot the landscape, because buildings are so expensive. I am wondering which he would view as more important: the interactions between the people inside the building, or the lack of beautiful stained glass windows and stone and mortar surroundings? I realize he'd probably say that the people who were willing to put up an ugly church were too plebian to begin with and that's where the problem started.
AJ
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Vulgar American Christianity aside, I wonder how those concepts fit into his framework. It seems to me that we are all possessed of a reverence for something but that we don't always act accordingly.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I don't think it's the same way we currently use those terms.
I would tend to agree with you. And then I would point out that speaking in code, to an audience that doesn't get the code, is pointless, stupid, and vain.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: He had a great respect for mideval Christians, those who felt the reverence and lived in constant and necessary fear of making the wrong decision, or indecision, and being cursed to eternal damnation.
Good gravy. He's holding up the obsessive attitude of mideval catholics toward sin and damnation as necessary?!?
[ March 18, 2005, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Does the man's impression:
"Bah, who is talking about framework. If we are to take ourselves seriously, we must cast off this idea of framework." I asked him a question and he told me to read Augustine's Confessions. I don't know what he thinks. That's not true, he thought that we were all woefully inadequate to be people because we are living in a Western world, and we were never schooled in the differences between Christian metaphysics and Greek metaphysics, and are thereby inadequate to think on the world today. That said, I went to a used bookstore and picked up a copy of the Confessions. I'll tell you all how it goes.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm trying to figure out what makes reverence for Great Art so morally superior to reverence to a Great Car (one so out of reach that you'll never own, like a Shelby Cobra)or reverence to a Beautiful Person, which is basically what causes paparrazi to make money, or reverence of a sports team, like the Red Sox.
I think that different people probably have equivalent amounts of reverence for each of those things.
AJ
(and the more you quote of this dude the more he sounds like a pretentious holier than thou snob. Because the fact is we ARE people regardless of how "prepared" he thinks we are to BE people. He can't change the facts.)
[ March 18, 2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Here was the thrust of his talk. Art is only possible by the breaking of the revealed heart. If it's not possible in our modern age, it's because we don't have a sense of reverence/self-contempt to be broken, because once we have the sense of reverence, then we will strive necessarily always fail-- because if we succeed, then the disappears as the ought only exists in the future and the is is always inferior to the ought-- and that is growth and life.
Translation: I am justified in being an art snob.
I don't know if I'm following this. You left out some key words when you typed. Did he go into why and how modern society has lost its reverence/self-contempt?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Those things do not intensify life, as what it is to be life. Maybe cars should take their moral cues from cars, but people, as they are baseball players should take their cue from the Red Sox, but the root of all of that, something that intensifies human life as human life is the subject of Great Art.
quote:Here was the thrust of his talk. Art is only possible by the breaking of the revealed heart. If it's not possible in our modern age, it's because we don't have a sense of reverence/self-contempt to be broken, because once we have the sense of reverence, then we will strive necessarily always fail-- because if we succeed, then the ought disappears as the ought only exists in the future and the is is always inferior to the ought-- and that is growth and life.
I left out the word ought. For the most part, I think a lot of snobs have points, at least the honest ones do. Then again, I find relativism appallingly inadequate.
[ March 18, 2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I read Augustine's confessions when I was 14 or 15. Maybe I was too young to properly appreciate it at the time. I did it on my own, no directed study or anything, but at the time, I couldn't figure out why he bothered writing it all down. It didn't seem very useful to me.
(I was interested in Augustine because he was the patron saint of animals.)
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If he thinks reading The Confessions is going to help anyone sort out the differences between Christian metaphysics and Greek metaphysics he’s deluded. It was discovering Christian neo-Platonism that led to Augustine’s conversion.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The beauty in cars, if they are beautiful is something that an human Artist put into it. And god help you if you get around a Red Sox fan and tell them that winning the World Series didn't intensify humanity in Boston.
(or are you saying they *do* come under his Great Art heading?)
AJ
[ March 18, 2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
dkw,
He asked the audience what "redemption" meant and nobody knew. People mumbled hazy answers, but nobody knew with a sense with clarity. He then said "earning back our freedom from the service of sin," and went on to talk about the poverty of our education.
BJ, I don't know if they do. I know that he would say "No," and probably compare them to a horror movie, but I don't know.
[ March 18, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals.
Augustine is the patron saint of brewers, theologians, and Superior Wisconsin.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It is indeed sad if a group of college students don't know at least some meaning of the word "redemption."
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmmm, did Francis write "Confessions" too? Maybe I've mixed them or that could have been my problem all along...
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
To be honest, with eighty "smart" people in that auditorium, we didn't.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Superior, Wisconsin? Soup Town?
Been there.
I don't think anyone sitting in that audience wanted to speak up and give a definition of redemption, for fear of being told to go read Augustine's Confessions. I'll bet the manner in which he asked the question just screamed You don't know, do you, you bunch of college idiots! I don't think I would have raised my hand.
I'm surprised this guy gave such a straightforward definition of redemption.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Banna, to the best of my knowledge Francis only wrote hymns/poetry.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OK, then I must have just happened to read Agustine's Confessions during my Francis of Assisi phase and the two happened to overlap. I can't imagine myself, at that age, mixing the two. I was much more anal retentive then than I am now. And for those of you who think I'm bad now, imagine me a decade ago!
AJ
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Reverence is merely an excuse to remain ignorant. Which is acceptable if comparing ones own capabilities with God's. But the only reason that the lecturer advocates that others hold self-contempt within themselves is cuz he's a bloomin' narcissist who wants to be revered while remaining a slothful idiot.
[ March 18, 2005, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The idea of combining Francis and Augustine is causing me to waver between giggling and head-exploding. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
dkw, that was also the phase where I was seriously considering a nunnery, because I really wanted to be in a monestary, but that wouldn't work given my gender. I also read some stuff by Maria Von Trapp, the real one, who only married the guy because after prayer and consideration the Mother Superior told her it was the "Will of God" and she wanted to follow God's will for her life, more than she wanted to stay a nun. Her entire life in her own writing was so focussed on following God's will, and actually living it, it blew me away far more than the jungle missionary stories I was raised with.
The whole being protestant thing and converting was a giant obstacle, given my parents, and I was already causing enough of a fracas with them at the time. But I did read a lot of random Catholic stuff at that point in time and came to my own conclusion that Catholics weren't going to hell in a handbasket, much to my Grandma's chagrin.
AJ
(lol, and if I do go back to church, the main contenders are Catholic, United Methodist (though Episcopalian would be kind of a compromise between the two) and ELCA as a runner up possibility. )
[ March 18, 2005, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Jeni, the guy went on a tirade about how mediocre art seeks to produce some sort of affect on the listener. To evoke something, and that in that way is sort of pornographic. *gets notes* I have written down, "The pornography of pain."
That's bizarre. IMO, mediocre art seeks only to shock the observer for no other purpose than provocation. Great art moves the observer despite himself. Once, I stood for half an hour before a Jackson Pollock original in the middle of Las Vegas. It was one of the most moving experiences with reverence I've had. All of life was in that painting, and I was moved to tears. And I don't like abstract art. Soon after, I read Henri Nowen's book about his experience with Rembrandt's "Return of the Prodigal Son". I could totally identify with Nowen's experience as far as the emotion viewing great art evoked.
The guy sounds really weird.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Jeni, I felt that way about "American Gothic" I'd seen the painting oodles of times in books, and it seemed to me to be one of the corniest stupidest paintings in existence, and why the heck was it touted as such a big deal.
Then I actually saw it. There is so much *more* to that painting IRL than there is seeing it in a book. It is hard to explain I could have stood there looking at it for hours.
AJ
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Totally.
Nowen's book was really good...he saw a poster reproduction of the painting, and was so moved that he had to see the original. This was back in Iron Curtain days, and the original is at the Hermitage. He got a visa to go into Russia and spent, if I remember right, two days straight, just looking at the painting. It inspired him to quit his high paying, prestigious career and go work with mentally challenged adults.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I've read too much Vonnegut (and agree with too much of it) to believe that Great Art is any more salvation than Great Science. Then again, I'm a romantic in a way, in that I don't see the two spheres as so separate as how they are perceived today.
Sometimes lies (fiction) can be more healthy than truth (facts), but not, or even most lies are. Only those lies that enable you to more truth are healthy.
As far as 'can' and 'ought'. I believe incorporating (within our govt., at least) some amount of 'ought' really isn't that hard. The problem is, in some ways it can look like 'can', and my belief is that there should be as little 'ought' to cover most of the populace, not maximizing 'ought' to those who have the most 'ought's.
You know, I really need to be face-to-face in conversations like this. My thoughts are too unordered in text.
-Bok
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'll bet the manner in which he asked the question just screamed You don't know, do you, you bunch of college idiots! I don't think I would have raised my hand.
It's a law school class. It's not as if the audience was made up 19 year olds who were shy. For the most part, the class is chalk full of know-it-alls who are chomping at the bit to show off. People started looking at their shoes and notebooks because nobody had a clear conception of the answer.
[ March 18, 2005, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
That's really funny when you consider that "redeem" is an early law term, meaning "buy back, restore" in a property sense.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's not a coincidence. It's the same sense in a religious context.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I realize that, my indirect point was that with a bunch of law students in the audience you would have thought they might have had a passing acquaintance with the legal concept. Which makes me wonder about the state of law schools in this country...
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I knew it was a transaction. As in a bottle or in slavery. I just didn't know what was being returned for what. That's kind of important, given the context. He asked what was the sense of "Christian redemption," and I'm thinking to myself, "All right, Jesus died for our sins," but that answer is vague. I'm sure other people were thinking the same thing. I knew the words, I just didn't know what the words refered to, which again was his point about our lack of history, appreciation for language, and inability for reverence.
[ March 18, 2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Constant Reader (Member # 7282) on :
Two words for this topic, since I'm not wordy. Ayn Rand Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
lol, that's what 11 years of competitive Bible Quizzing (in King James) does for someone. I knew it off of the top of my head. And I'm sure I was raised as one of those, "vulgar American Christians".
AJ
[ March 18, 2005, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
No, you weren't. I thought you were homeschooled precisely to keep away from those vulgar Christians. Look, we can keep boxing and you can go out of your way to show that the guy was a fool, but I don't know. He made clear, cogent arguments, drawing my attention to assumptions I didn't even know I held.
Jeni's experience sounds like reverence to me, and Nowen's experience sounds like one who gained moral wisdom through great Art.
He said lesser art is pornographic because it doesn't share wisdom, as much as it provokes some sort of emotion. I imagine it's the difference between having sex and making love.
[ March 18, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
lol, I wasn't saying that the guy was entirely a fool. Most pompous people are pretty intelligent because they get everyone else to believe them. I was making a comment about the state of U.S. Law Schools, that no one knew in an audience of law students knew the definition of the term. The comment was somewhat facetious, and you totally missed the tounge-in-cheek.
FYI, I was homeschooled partially because my parents *were* fundamentalist Christians though their initial reasons were primarily academic. I would no longer classify myself as fundamentalist, though if it came down to it I'd still define myself as "Christian". However According to my parents I'm a complete heathen and helfire is licking at my feet. They view themselves as parental failures because they are worried about my eternal salvation, though I have tried to point out several times that in theory it is between me and God and no one else.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Though the dichotomy he makes between "wisdom" and "emotion" is interesting. I'm not sure my American Gothic experience could be described as "wisdom", though there was definitely intangible emotion.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think the state of schools would be worse if students graduated without knowing the sense of the word. Isn't that the measure of an institution? How people come out, not how they go in?
[ March 18, 2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
How many other schools won't have a lecture that includes the legal definition of redemption? Sounds like these law students wouldn't necessarily have known it, had they not had a guest lecuturer in to listen to. What's the guarantee that he's going to lecture to every class that goes through?
AJ (but as I said, it was a tounge in cheek point, basically agreeing with dkw. Just about any good in depth study of Christian theology of any stripe will include focus on the meaning and history of the word "redemption" in the Hebrew, Greek and English iterations because the word is central to many concepts of Christianity.)
[ March 18, 2005, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It wasn't the legal definition of redemption that we didn't know. Anyone in California who has read a the label on a bottle of soda knows that redemption is getting something back for giving something, we just didn't know what it meant with respect to Christian metaphysics, that is, exactly what we were getting back for what gift.
quote:but as I said, it was a tounge in cheek point, basically agreeing with dkw. Just about any good in depth study of Christian theology of any stripe will include focus on the meaning and history of the word "redemption" in the Hebrew, Greek and English iterations because the word is central to many concepts of Christianity.
I agree. The thing is, I don't think it's something that should be reserved for a deep study of Christian theology. His argument was that everyone living in the west and speaking this language needs to understand Christian metaphysics, even if we don't have faith. If we don't understand that much, we are living some sort of rootless life because we use these words, and the words are rooted in some phenomena, and if we use these words without a clear understanding of the phenomena they refer to, our essence becomes some sort of joke.
I don't know if I would go that far, but there is something there.
[ March 18, 2005, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well the gift is free to us. It's Jesus that's doing the buying back, paying for the debt of our sins, but you already know this now. There are various theological interpretations of the "Attonement", limited attonement (is the gift of salvation only truly offered to those who accept it) Unlimited attonenement (the gift of salvation buys back and restores the whole world even those who don't actually accept the gift) and various stripes in between. And that's just in the conservative Christian theology which I learned. I believe dkw learned a whole different variety of Attonement Theory.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmm, I don't know how much a non believer would actually get out of discussing the intracies of Attonement, other than the intellectual excercise. So are you saying that he feels that the intellectual excercise improves one's moral base so as to be profitable to spend the time on it, even if one is an unbeliever?
I guess it would be harmless, but I don't know that it would do a lot of overarching good. And it would piss off a lot of athiests and agnostics.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't know how much a non believer would actually get out of discussing the intracies of Attonement, other than the intellectual excercise.
I got the feeling that he doesn't believe that Christian attonement is insular. The idea bleeds into the way we understand everything. I sat in on another lecture where he spoke about how we understand facts, that is, from the Latin facare, which is to make or to do. And facts, as we understand them today, are that which is made or done by God.
He took this through an argument that I still don't quite understand about how since the world is a product of the thought of God, and facts are makings or doings by God, facts, that is, the workings of the world, are assumed to be, at base, intelligible, opening the way for science to gain credence as true knowledge about the world from a God's eye perspective.
Once again, I couldn't follow the argument all the way through. I'm sure I missed some nuance. But he definitely believes that how we understand Christianity allows us to elevate the role and information science provides, by some how giving us to think that science provides some sort of window into the world.
______
Admittedly, he doesn't think that science can tell you anything about anything that matters, and our pre-occupation with it is a bit shameful. Instead, of course, we should be learning the Wisdom that is radiating from great art, but that learning is only possible once we grow our sense of self-contempt and reverence, as the distance between those two is where morality resides.
[ March 18, 2005, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Your guy has completely missed the point of science. If science is dry and boring and not beauty and awe, there's something wrong. It has nothing to do, necessarily with understanding interpersonal interactions, it has everything to do with realizing you *are* just a speck in the universe which is what the dude was going for. Somone who can't stand in awe at the beauty and intricacy of the structure that is DNA, is equally as morally deficient as someone who can't appreciate Great Art.
Thanks, Banna. You said it much better than I could have. To me, science is all about admiring Great Art--it's just that the artist is nature, or God, depending on your beliefs.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the speaker's idea of contempt, but I don't think that self-contempt is better than humility. In my mind, humility is about understanding your place in the world, and having an accurate picture of yourself. Self-contempt is placing yourself lower than is correct. It is as much a sin to deny the good in yourself as it is to think that you are better than you are. I do, however, think that we need to be aware of our faults. Since no one is perfect, we all should be working to be better people. If that is the speaker's view of self-contempt, then I am all for it. But complete self-hatred is just as unhealthy as complete arrogance.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I just think the guys a freak! Not much to argue about; he should be proud someone loaths him since that is what he seems to want.
By the way, from a former self-contemptor, what he says in theory doesn't work in practice. All that such a personal "hatred" does is make you want to kill yourelf and others. He should have learned that from the real world of Columbine. I knew those guys, for I was them in high school (black trenchcoat and all), and therefore understood exactly what they did and why. The diffference was that I found self-worth and faith in God.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Irami, you are really into this Christian/Kantian guilt thing, aren't you? Have you ever read B. Williams' Shame and Necessity? If not, I recommend it as a good counterpoint to the guilt and atonement approach to moral value.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I find that 'ought', in any sort of ethical/existential/free will context, has gone into disuse. 'Ought' has become almost solely a term used in relation to an external condition.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't know what he thinks. That's not true, he thought that we were all woefully inadequate to be people because we are living in a Western world, and we were never schooled in the differences between Christian metaphysics and Greek metaphysics, and are thereby inadequate to think on the world today. That said, I went to a used bookstore and picked up a copy of the Confessions. I'll tell you all how it goes.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)