I Love Philosophy

This program would not work:

public Class Husband {

public Husband(string colorIdentifiesAs, string genderIdentifiesAs, string temperament){

this.race = new Race(colorIdentifiesAs);
this.gender = new Gender(genderIdentifiesAs);
this.temperament = new Temperament(temperament);

}

Race race = null;
Gender gender = null;
Temperament temperament = null;

public Items[] GetItems(Stuff stuff){
var itemsToGet = stuff.Items;
for (i = 0, j = itemsToGet.length, i < j; I++) {

var cart = AddToCart(items[i]); var items = Checkout(cart); DriveHome(); CarryAllItemsInOneTrip(); NotifyWife();

if (items.length > 0){
return items;
}
else{
return null;
}
}
}

public Items[] GoToStore(Husband h, Message m){
var hasRandomThing = RunAroundStoreSearchingFor(m.randomThingToCheckFor);
if(hasRandomThing){

return GetItems(6,itemToGet);

}

else{ return null; }

}

}

public Class Wife {

public Wife(string colorIdentifiesAs, string genderIdentifiesAs, string temperament){

this.race = new Race(colorIdentifiesAs);
this.gender = new Gender(genderIdentifiesAs);
this.temperament = new Temperament(temperament);

}

Race race = null;
Gender gender = null;
Temperament temperament = null;

public Message ThinkOfThingsToDemand(string magicWord, string itemReallyWanted, itemDesired, number){

Message m = new Message();
m.itemReallyWanted = itemReallyWanted;
m.randomThingToCheckFor = itemDesired;
m.number = number;
m.text = ‘${magicWord} go to the store and get ${m.itemReallyWanted}. If they have ${m.itemDesired}, get ${m.number}.’

m.randomThingToCheckFor = itemDesired;

return DemandThings(m);

}

public string DemandThings(Message m){
return NotifyHusband(m);
}
}

main{

try{
var husband = new Husband(“white”,”male”, “reasonable”);
var wife = new Wife(“white”,”female”, “demanding”);

while(1){
var message = wife.ThinkOfThingsToDemand(“please”,“milk”,”avocados”,6);
var stuffToGet = wife.DemandThings(message);
husband.GoToStore(stuffToGet);
}
}
catch(error){
console.log(error);
}
}

console:

itemToGet is undefined

This post is devoted to a conversation with a friend who has been wondering about happiness and holiness. His initial Facebook post included the following question:

“Saw this on a friend’s timeline and was left wondering: “God doesn’t want us to be happy, but holy” give this exact impression?”

“If we give the impression that the main effect of Christianity is to make us miserable, then it is not surprising that ninety percent of the people are outside the Christian church. ‘Miserable Christians,’ they say, ‘look at them!’ And they add that they have life, they have joy, they have fullness. Shame on us Christian people! But it is not merely a question of saying shame on us. What a terrible responsibility is ours if we are so misrepresenting this ‘glorious gospel of the blessed God’ (1 Timothy 1:11). We are meant to be witnesses to all people that we are filled to overflowing. We are meant to show the truth of the psalmist’s words: ‘My cup runneth over!’ (Psalm 23:5).”

– Martyn Lloyd Jones

My response:

“I think so many phrases like this are so misleading… and are taught often on Sunday mornings! And as the gospel! And it makes me mad. So mad that I have been resorting to a commitment to not telling people cliches but reaching to the depths of philosophy to reconsider not what is the truth, but how to convey it in ways unheard of… in ways not entrenched with connotation already. Example: “it’s not a religion, it’s a relationship.” Well… James 1 says otherwise. Another, of a higher order: Romans Road to Salvation… John 1:11-13 says it’s not by the will of man but the will of God (“He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”)… quoted to say that belief is not humanly manufactured, but is the result and necessary consequence (as natural is to spiritual), for the born-from-above person. If belief is there at all… it’s a gift of God. If it’s not present, then Paul advocates that we remember some plant seeds and others water, and God adds the growth! (If he wants to; he doesn’t always add the growth… it’s sort of part of… I dunno… being Sovereign…) I think people don’t have a right sense of happiness when they make being happy at odds with a concept of “joy.” I think today Aristotle is too under-appreciated, but more than that, the Socratic sense of the cave and getting out of the cave is even more relevant. There is an outside of the cave that is the world… it’s called the Kingdom of God”

His response to that: “What is a right sense of happiness, then?”

I responded with the following:

“Boethius comes closer than so many in telling of a right sense of happiness. He is influenced by Aristotle. As Aristotle says “Happiness is that which all other goods seek,” Boethius then says, “God is that happiness.” All goods point to God, as John says, “all things were made through him and by him and for him.” So, in this sense, I associate the logos (truth) with happiness, and as one is led along to know this Shepherd who is that very logos, happiness is increased and is present. I think the Socratic sense of being a philosopher is helpful here: lover of learning, lover of truth. So then truth is a what, but it’s also a who. And we both know who that is. It’s unhelpful when people say “God is a who, not a what.” He is both! He is of divine nature, and is love, and is just.”

He then asked: “does God care that we are circumstantially happy? Of course, we suffer sometimes, while other times good, even wonderful things happen to us. Is it that both types of experiences contribute to our holiness?” (via Facebook)

My response:

Continue reading “Human Happiness and Human Holiness”

(Warning: some vulgarity)

This blog post is devoted to the hilarious, usually non sequitur comments found through Facebook. I have not been able to cite everyone who contributed (you know who you are). Feel free to comment below to claim credit if you are the original source of any of these comments! If you read various comments on photos and videos, I’m sure you’ll see some of these floating around. Feel free to copy and paste one or two into random comment boxes 🙂 (please cite my blog post here if possible, thanks!)

Happy Commenting!

——————————————————————————————————-

I can’t think of anything to comment so I’m just going to post a Blueberry pancake recipe.

1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon baking powder
1 1/4 teaspoons white sugar
1 egg
1 cup milk
1/2 tablespoon butter, melted
1/2 cup frozen blueberries, thawed

1. In a large bowl, sift together flour, salt, baking powder and sugar. In a small bowl, beat together egg and milk. Stir milk and egg into flour mixture. Mix in the butter and fold in the blueberries. Set aside for 1 hour.
2. Heat a lightly oiled griddle or frying pan over medium high heat. Pour or scoop the batter onto the griddle, using approximately 1/4 cup for each pancake. Brown on both sides and serve hot.

—

Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Hector is going to be running three Honda Civics with Spoon engines. And on top of that, he just went into Harry’s and ordered three T66 turbos with NOS… and a Motec system and exhaust.

—

to save you from reading everyone’s comments, here’s a quick brief. there’s someone complaining about:

1. racism
2. one dude said it’s funny as hell
3. a feminist group saying “Womenizer”
4. hundreds ppl tagging their friends.
5. hundreds posting emoji.
6. some were very upset and threatened FB.
7. some wrote comments that make no sense whatsoever.
8. some say this is fake and give you the detailed analyses Like CSI Detectives.
9. some are asking for likes
10. many saying she got what was coming.
11. some have copied and pasted this message.

Continue reading “Non sequitur/hilarious Facebook comments”

Now such a thing, happiness,
above all else, is considered to be.
For this we choose always for itself,
and never for the sake of something else. 

But honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose,
indeed, for themselves, even if with them we still should lose.
But we choose them also for the sake of happiness,
judging that by having them, we shall have bliss.

Happiness, on the other hand,
no one chooses for the sake of these,
nor, in general, for the sake of ease.

 From the point of view of self-sufficiency,
the same result seems to follow,
for the best good is without dependency. Continue reading “The Complete Life (feat. Aristotle)”

eternality
depends on being loved and
made alive by Light

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

John 11:25-26 (ESV)

Boethius is uncommonly known for his book, The Consolation of Philosophy (Oxford World’s Classics), in which Lady Philosophy comforts him and rights his perspective as he suffers unjustly for doing the right thing.

Lady Philosophy challenges him with this idea that the wicked are getting their punishment and the righteous are being rewarded in this life, despite the way that it looks. This is true because those who are righteous are so for one reason: such are righteous due to their true faith that results from rightly knowing God, and rightly knowing God is a result of being made into a new creation by God. For this reason, the wicked are those who do not come to God through Jesus, and the righteous are those who have this faith. This perspective is found in Psalm 73, where the psalmist says,

…they say, ‘How can God know? Is there knowledge in the Most High?’ Behold, these are the wicked; always at ease, they increase in riches. All in vain have I kept my heart clean and washed my hands in innocence. For all the day long I have been stricken and rebuked every morning… But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end. Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin… (Psalm 73:11-18, ESV)

Modern philosophy makes the category of good and evil to be relative, and therefore not absolute in relation to God. This is in direct contradiction to the overarching theme and various commands of God throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. In Genesis 1, God distinguishes light and dark. Leviticus shows God’s concern for the distinction between clean and unclean. David so clearly shows God’s love for that which is holy in contrast to all that is unholy. Proverbs tells of wise and foolish. Jesus reveals that it is belief in the Son as distinguished from belief in any other way to the Father that makes the difference between death and life. Hebrews even says that meat (in contrast to milk) of the Word is for those who constantly practice distinguishing good and evil. So, to dismiss this category as irrelevant is to be in defiance to God, while to receive that which is revealed as good and evil is to begin to “use the law lawfully,” as Paul encourages.

Modern senses of reason and rationality tend to be driven by, in part, and maybe a big part, a kind of self-interested focus where the person is said to be reasonable when they calculate, in the decision-making process, whatever tends toward one’s own benefit. Sometimes this is quantified into an encompassing term like ‘efficiency.’ Such a love is empty. I tend to think, however, that there is a sense of rationality that comes from the way we are made in God’s image. A rationality that comes from this ontological basis has to do with God’s nature as being Love. While the natural person can experience selfless love to a degree (sometimes people refer to “unconditional love of parents toward their children”), it is a shadow, and those who have been made into “a new creation” are being changed into creatures made of this irrational love. A decision-making process where the person actually considers not what will tend toward self-preservation, but the good of God, another, and then oneself, is the name of this game — the irrationality of love.

Love in modern Western thinking tends to be about what one can get from another person. “If you love me, then you’ll do x for me” tends to be justified by the idea that people are (supposedly) by nature self-focused, even when one admires or cares about and for another. However, this kind of love is not the essence of the kind of rationality that comes from selfless love. “Love is not self-seeking,” writes Paul. What would our world look like with a fundamentally different kind of rationality considered in all of our analyses, especially political analysis? How would our Democracy (as some call it) look if that which drives individual decisions were an eye toward the good of others, both concretely as the persons within one’s vicinity and abstractly as those within the broader spheres of community? I think it would look like the offended party contributing to the good of the offender. I think it would look like humility. I think it would look like all the qualities that are missing in public conversation today about who and what constitutes the very person of Jesus, the God-man. Thoughts? Feelings?