The Meaning of "Perichoretic Blue"

The phrase "perichoretic blue" comes from a poem that I wrote for my wife about the love shared by the sky and the sea, entitled "The Second Day". The final stanza reads:

The horizon dissolves into perichoretic blue,
Where there's no separating me from you.
And there's no separating you from me,
Because you are the sky and I am the sea.

 

I use "perichoretic" as the adjectival form of "perichoresis": the theological doctrine pertaining to the interpenetration of, and complete fellowship shared among, the persons of the Trinity. Marriage, while not truly perichoretic, resembles the unity of the divine persons as two individuals become one flesh. In my poem, the horizon is a metaphor for this "marital perichoresis" as an azure band where the sky and sea meet, becoming entirely confluent.

continue reading
Tags | Philosophy

Language: Why are some words bad?

I'm looking forward to attending the Desiring God National Conference next month, The Power of Words and the Wonder of God, in Minneapolis, and one of the speakers I'm most looking forward to hearing is Paul Tripp, whom I was not familiar with before hearing about him through the conference site.

Check out his PG-13 ruminations on "What Makes Bad Language Bad?" below. I so appreciate his point of view, and am eager to hear more from him in September.

continue reading
Tags | Philosophy

Solving the Rock Problem

In my last blog, we looked at a very common objection to the existence of God. In this objection, the skeptic essentially urges that the very concept of omnipotence leads to contradiction and absurdity, since we can imagine a case in which this omnipotent force meets an immovable object. Since such a case would entail the absurd result that the object both could and could not be moved, we should reject the claim that and omnipotent God exists.

Here’s the argument put a bit more carefully:

continue reading

Why the Poor Are Often Happy in This Life

Like the knowledge that you will be hanged in the morning, bad economic times concentrate the mind wonderfully, but with the added advantage of being able to do something with what you have learned next week.

What should we learn from hard times?

If my bad finances are the result of foolish or wicked behavior, there is an obvious lesson to learn. Assuming that high returns can come without high risk is foolish. Spending your spouse’s retirement fund on a Vegas fling is wicked. The wages of economic sin is financial death. Some of us earn our poverty.

Many of us blame the stars for our stupidity, but often the problem is not in our fate, but in our bad choices. In bad economic times, a wise man will check first to see what he or she has done wrong.
continue reading
Tags | Philosophy

I'm Not Alone: Obama the Po-Mo Candidate

It seems I'm not alone with my sense about how Obama (and Bell) use their language.

Here is an interesting piece from, of all places, USA Today on Obama's flexible use of English.

--

In the Illinois senator’s world, words have no fixed meaning, and truth is often just a matter of perspective.

By Jonah Goldberg

Asked to define sin, Barack Obama replied that sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Statements such as this have caused many people to wonder whether Obama has a God complex or is hopelessly arrogant. For the record, sin isn't being out of alignment with your own values (if it were, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't be a sinner because his values hold that it's OK to eat people) nor is it being out of alignment with Obama's — unless he really is our Savior.

(Illustration by Suzy Parker, USA TODAY)

There is, however, a third possibility. Obama is a postmodernist.

An explosive fad in the 1980s, postmodernism was and is an enormous intellectual hustle in which left-wing intellectuals take crowbars and pick axes to anything having to do with the civilizational Mount Rushmore of Dead White European Males.

"PoMos" hold that there is no such thing as capital-T "Truth." There are only lower-case "truths." Our traditional understandings of right and wrong, true and false, are really just ways for those Pernicious Pale Patriarchs to keep the Coalition of the Oppressed in their place. In the PoMo's telling, reality is "socially constructed." And so the PoMos seek to tear down everything that "privileges" the powerful over the powerless and to replace it with new truths more to their liking.

Hence the deep dishonesty of postmodernism. It claims to liberate society from fixed meanings and rigid categories, but it is invariably used to impose new ones, usually in the form of political correctness. We've all seen how adept the PC brigades are celebrating free speech, when it's for speech they like.

Words as power, facts as myths

Obama gives every indication of having evolved from this intellectual soup. As a student and, later, a law school instructor, Obama was sympathetic to Critical Race Theory, a wholly owned franchise of postmodernism. At Harvard, Obama revered Derrick Bell, a controversial black law professor who preferred personally defined literary truths over old-fashioned literal truth. Words are power, Bell and Co. argued, and your so-called facts are merely myths of the white power structure.

When Hillary Clinton criticized Obama for being all about empty rhetoric and no action, Obama mocked Clinton — "Don't tell me words don't matter!" — sounding like a sorcerer offended by the suggestion that magic incantations are mere sounds.

One reason Obama seems arrogant is that he can never admit he was wrong, a common shortcoming of politicians. But Obama sometimes literally gets exasperated with people who think his words can mean anything other than what he thinks they should mean. Even when he says things he later regrets such as on, say, the North American Free Trade Agreement, he merely says that his rhetoric got overheated, but that he was still accurate. When Jeremiah Wright, his pastor and "spiritual adviser" of 20 years, was caught on videotape (recorded and sold by Wright himself) saying things that contradicted everything Obama ever said about being a post-racial, moderate candidate, Obama simply said that that's not the Jeremiah Wright he knows, as if his personal perspective settled the issue.

Would that I could have told my math teacher upon receiving a failing grade, "That's not the math I know."

On the troop surge, Obama's position has changed countless times, but he says it's unchanged. Worse, he has this grating habit of prefacing his new positions with something like "as I said at the time." But he didn't say "it" at the time, he said the opposite of "it." But saying that he said "it" is, to him, the same as having said "it."

We're told that Obama is "post-racial," but he invokes his own race whenever convenient (e.g., to suggest his opponents are racists, to win support of people who want to vote for him on account of his race). Indeed, the very idea that Obama is post-racial is postmodern claptrap, since only a black candidate can be post-racial, right? No one would say John McCain transcends race. If being post-racial is something only a (liberal) black politician can do, what is "post" about it? Post-racial is just another convenient term used to advance a left-wing agenda under the guise of some highfalutin buzzwords.

A theoretical reality

The Obama campaign has a postmodern feel to it because more than anything else, it seems to be about itself. Its relationship to reality is almost theoretical. Sure, the campaign has policy proposals, but they are props to advance the narrative of a grand movement existing in order to be a movement galvanized around the singular ideal of movement-ness. Obama's followers are, to borrow from David Hasselhoff — another American hugely popular in Germany — hooked on a feeling. "We are the ones we have been waiting for!" Well, of course you are.

In Berlin two weeks ago, Obama's speech was justified solely by the fact that he was giving it. He offered no policy and — not being a president — really had no reason to be there other than to tell people, essentially, "now is the moment." He informed the throbbing masses, bathing in his charisma the way hippies wallowed in the mud at Woodstock, that the greatest threat facing the world is the possibility we might allow "new walls to divide us from one another." Nuclear war? Feh. No, walls, walls are the danger. Of course, these new walls aren't real. Some might even say they're just words.

But not Barack Obama.

continue reading

The Rock Problem for God

It is sometimes argued that the concept of omnipotence involves a contradiction. If one is omnipotent, one is able to bring about any logically possible state of affairs. One logically possible state of affairs, however, is that the world should contain a rock that is too large for anyone to lift. An omnipotent being must be able to bring it about, therefore, that there is such a rock.

Suppose then, that an omnipotent being does this. Then there is a rock that no one, including the omnipotent being, can lift. But any rock must be such that it is logically possible to lift it. So there is now a logically possible action - the lifting of a certain rock - that the being we are considering cannot perform. Therefore, that being is not omnipotent. The assumption that there is an omnipotent being leads, accordingly, to a contradiction.

continue reading

A New Argument for Dualism

In my last blog, I introduced what I think is a new, very interesting, and very compelling argument for dualism - the view that we are not our physical bodies or brains but rather immaterial souls that can survive the death of our bodies.

I asked you to consider a very far out - but logically possible - scenario. I asked you to imagine that the brain behind your eyes had been removed from your skull while keeping the connections intact with miniature radio transceivers. The brain had then been put into a vat of nutrients to keep it alive, while it receives and sends signals to the body. Such an operation, if successful, wouldn't affect your perception of reality at all. Your point of view wouldn't change, you would still feel pain when your body stepped on a tack, etc.

continue reading

A New Argument for Dualism?

I had an interesting new philosophy thought the other day, which I've really enjoyed. The thought was sparked by a story told by philosopher Dan Dennett, in his essay "Where am I?" 

Dennett imagines the following far out - but logically possible - scenario. He imagines that there is a dangerous nuclear device with a peculiar property: its radiation only affects brains. Someone needs to recover and defuse the device, but nobody wants to endanger his or her own brain.

So it had been decided that the person sent to recover the device should leave his brain behind.  It would be kept in a safe place as there it could execute its normal control functions by elaborate radio links.  Would I submit to a surgical procedure that would completely remove my brain, which would then be placed in a life-support system...in Houston?  Each input and output pathway, as it was severed, would be restored by a pair of microminiaturized radio transceivers, one attached precisely to the brain, the other to the nerve stumps in the empty cranium.  No information would be lost, all the connectivity would be preserved. 

continue reading
Tags | Philosophy

How are we free, if God knows what we will do?

If God knows what we will do before we do it, and if God can't be wrong, then how could we possibly be free? And if we're not free in our actions, how could God justly hold us responsible on Judgment Day? This is the problem of divine omniscience and human free will. 

Here's an argument I often hear for the conclusion that divine omniscience is incompatible with free will:

(1) Necessarily, if God believes p, then p is true. (from the definition of "omniscience")
(2) God believes that I will eat cereal tomorrow. (stipulated)
(3) Therefore, I must eat cereal tomorrow.

And it's plausible that if I must eat cereal, then I'm not free with respect to that action. So it looks like God's omniscience is incompatible with free will.

continue reading

Some Interesting Articles for Christian Thinkers

This post is just meant to direct you to a couple of articles you may be interested in.

 First, William Lane Craig writes about the premature obituary that some New Atheists have written for God. It turns out that Christian Philosophy is alive and thriving in even the tallest, thickest ivory towers:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html

 

Second, after reading a few of the trendy new Evangelical books on the market (for example, Blue Like Jazz and The Irresistible Revolution), I found this recent post by Doug Groothuis to be disturbingly accurate:

http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-be-popular-evangelical-writer.html

continue reading
Syndicate content

Bloggers in Philosophy


Sign-up for the Newsletter
Sign-up for the Newsletter
Get the latest updates on relevant news topics, engaging blogs and new site features. We're not annoying about it, so don't worry.