Peter Kreeft is a Professor of Philosophy at Boston College and I have been listening to his excellent lecture series on the history of ethics (What would Socrates do? – Barnes and Noble). In the introduction he points out that much of modern philosophy taught in universities is casuistry ( by casuistry Kreeft means “the determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules”), that is to say how to apply principles of philosophy to contentious issues such as cloning, abortion, or euthanasia. Much less time, according to Kreeft, is spent on discovering and understanding the principles themselves. He divides all questions into big questions and little questions and points out one has to work through the big questions that lead to the principles before one can realistically apply the principles to specific moral problems confronting our society. So what do you think are the five biggest questions? (continue reading…)
Archive
Category: AuthorsJo Walton, a Science Fiction and Fantasy writer who lives in Montreal, recently she wrote an interesting post explaining why she re-reads books that she doesn’t like. She developed this unusual habit in her childhood when she would read books that were beyond her years. Although these books such as Ivanhoe and David Copperfield were not that interesting at first they were on re-reading and so there was a sense of “growing into fiction.”
I have to say this has not been my experience with one notable exception. I love C.S. Lewis’ Science Fiction Trilogy Out of the Silent Planet. However I could not get through the second volume Perelandra (or sometimes called Voyage to Venus). I started it three or four times and always bogged down in the same place and then skipped on to That Hideous Strength. Finally I read it all the way through and now it is indeed my favorite book in the series.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I do re-read many books, but they are my favorites. Like old friends, even though I know the stories inside out, just to hear them say it again brings out an image, or a thought I had not seen before. By having the rest of the book in my mind because of many re-readings, I can often put together thoughts that could not have occurred to me on the first reading.
Perhaps I should take a cue from Jo Walton and try re-reading books I have abandoned.
Which books do you like well enough to re-read?
Thanks for reading,
Peter
http://peterkazmaier.com
I have had some difficulty classifying The Halcyon Dislocation as Science Fiction or as Fantasy. On the one hand the University of Halcyon, consistent with a Science Fiction story, comes from a time and technological culture that’s slightly in advance of our own, yet when the people of the university are dislocated to a new world, they encounter inhabitants which are much more reminiscent of The Lord of the Rings than they are of Star Trek. Consistent with this ambiguity I characterize The Halcyon Dislocation as SciFi/Fantasy on my Facebook page.
I asked a friend of mine who is an avid reader of both genres “What is the difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction?” He answered: “Science Fiction talks about things that could happen. Fantasy does not. That’s why I like Science Fiction better.” So is this really the essential difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy? (continue reading…)
I belong to a movie watching group and one of their discussion threads covers the member’s favorite movies of all time. When I read through the lists of the other contributors, I realized how different my tastes were and I thought I ought to generate my own list. Many of my selections are older movies.
So how did I arrive at the order? I generally evaluate a movie (as I do books) by how often I’m willing to watch it. If I watch a movie many times, the movie (or movie series) will make it to the top of my list.
So what are my top 20 movies or movie series in reverse order? (continue reading…)
I recently had an opportunity to visit a friend of mine to listen with him to a lecture on the provocative topic of whether or not the Bible is beneficial and therefore should be kept or deleted. Having listened to the lecture and wishing to write about it, I find myself in a quandary. On the one hand I owe the speaker good language since she traveled a fair distance to present her talk and she delivered her presentation with an amiable demeanor. Still I will have little good to say about the lecture, so taking a cue from C. S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man, I propose to simply call the talk “The Lecture,” and I will call the speaker Docilla so that I can confine my comments to the content. So what was my reaction to the talk?
First let me deal with the provocative topic: should the Bible be kept or deleted? I suppose this statement may be provocative hyperbole for “is the Bible still relevant or is it irrelevant?” However I received no clear indication that the title was not meant literally so let me talk to the title from point of view that “delete” really means delete. There are many book ancient and modern which I do not think either edifying or helpful, but that does not mean I would like to see them deleted. Even a badly written book can serve as an example on how not to write. Books that I believe wrong-headed or advocate destructive behavior can still raise important questions. My love of books, my desire for freedom, and my personal commitment to try to find the truth about important questions make me hesitant to destroy any book. Given my perspective, it was a surprise to me that several in the audience (perhaps 3-4 out of 25) had voted for deletion of the Bible. It was a surprise because I had great difficulty reconciling their view that the Bible was such an extraordinarily dangerous book that it ought to be deleted with my own investigation of the contents.
So what about the lecture itself? Had I given the lecture, I would have discussed the history of the Biblical texts and the scholarship surrounding the early manuscripts, the use of the texts by the early Christians and the eventual collection of the sacred Christian writings into the New Testament canon. I would have then gone on to compare and contrast good and bad behaviors that have come out of the application of the principles in these writings from the earliest days to the present.
Docilla did very little of this. It was impossible for me to understand where she stood on these basic questions or even to glean the key facts about the archeological and textual evidence for the historicity of the Bible from her lecture. Furthermore she spent a disproportionate amount of time on extra-biblical writings such as the gospel of Thomas.
Much of the talk centered on the theme that one cannot interpret the Biblical text (or any text I suppose) unless one has the right metaphor to unlock the meaning. I don’t deny that metaphors can be useful in gaining understanding. A metaphor is useful because we can take something concrete and use it to help understand something that is abstract. Yet much of what she described extracted arcane conclusions out of New Testament writings while ignoring what seems plain and straight forward.
On reflection, The Lecture was not a lecture at all, but rather one long story. I’m not completely sure if the story was a work of fiction or non-fiction and perhaps in the mind of Docilla that distinction is not very clear. I suppose there are many benefits to Postmodern thinking that treats everything as a story. But if our passion for story makes us lose sight of what is true and false, I think we have lost a great deal.
Thanks for reading,
Peter
A friend of mine pointed out to me an amazing video on Youtube that demonstrated the remarkable memory ability of trained chimpanzees to replicate a sequence of numbers that they have seen only for a very short time. Apparently even humans who are gifted with an excellent memory cannot match the speed that these trained chimps display in remembering and keying in a sequence of numbers on a monitor.
So how human are chimps? (continue reading…)
At the first lecture of Get Over Yourself by Bruxy Cavey an interesting book by J. M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell entitled The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in an Age of Entitlement was discussed.
In summary, Cavey, while he acknowledged there were people who had self-destructive perceptions of themselves, argued that “self-love” and “self-affirmation” have become a panacea of our generation for almost all psychological ailments. Instead promoting this, in his words we should:
“…renounce the pop-culture pursuit of self-love. Forget trying to love yourself more. In fact, most of us would benefit from thinking about ourselves less, period. Start focusing on the needs and desires of others, especially those people who are on the margins of social circles.”
In response to this, I would ask:
- Is it true that our generation is overly focused on ourselves?
- If we are, is it a bad thing?
In our culture where we receive so much advice about building self-confidence and self-esteem, it is refreshing to hear about a series of lectures that challenges this paradigm. If you are interested, I’ve attached the information on the lectures below.
In one sense to me, building self-esteem and self-confidence by imagining that I am able to do things that are beyond me is a bit like a placebo – I am relying on a psychological lift to improve my behavior. Although, like a placebo this may have some positive effect, ultimately I’m relying on a cheat. I am a finite human being and I do have limitations.
It will be interesting to see how Bruxy Cavey deals with this question. If you’d like to learn more, listen to the free podcasts or attend the lectures, check out the link to The Meeting House to get more information. It is my hope that Bruxy Cavey will teach how to take the “self” out of self-confidence and self-esteem.
Thanks for reading,
Peter
The Halcyon Dislocation was reviewed by Lisa Hall-Wilson in Maranatha News. Here is a quote …
“I was drawn in by the author’s vivid descriptions and imagination in this new world that is Middle Earth-like.”
Anyone who compares my work (even in a small with way) to that monumental masterpiece by J.R.R. Tolkien, brings great joy to this author’s heart!
Thanks for reading.
~Peter
It was about a year ago when a friend of mine asked what I thought of Peter Joseph’s movie, Zeitgeist . Zeitgeist is a movie that has been viewed by more than 50 M viewers and has propagated by viral marketing (i.e. one viewer after another emails the link to their friends because of its startling and controversial message). The movie itself is divided into three sections. The first part claims that Jesus and his life is a “recent” version of an astro-theological myth that has been replayed many, many times in the past. The second part claims that the 9/11 catastrophe was orchestrated by the United States, and the final portion makes claims about an international banking conspiracy.
Now let me say at the outset that I watched part 2 only once and never watched part 3, so I have no comments to make on these. So what are my thoughts on part 1?