Meditations on a Marathon

"On this system one could fight all the forces of existence without deserting the flag of existence. One could be at peace with the universe and yet be at war with the world."

G.K. Chesterton

A dear friend of mine ran a marathon this past weekend. It was my first opportunity to watch any part of a marathon in person, and I was unsure as to what I should expect. I'm glad to say that I loved it. The freedom to support and cheer everyone on, both strangers and friends, was exhilarating.

It struck me that the reason why people are so quick to cheer the runners on is because we are, for the most part, simply impressed with the daring to attempt such a daunting task. We recognize that the marathon represents the peak of training, and that all of the runners have paid a price for entering the race. By the time they cross the starting line, they have already committed time, energy, and finances to the task ahead. And we respect them for that.

But, at the same time, the unwavering support received by the runners is combined with a stark knowledge of how they stack up against their competitors. For the vast majority of the runners, in fact, the race is not competitive in any meaningful way. But, because the runners have earned our respect just by crossing the starting line, we are free to cheer for the runners without disappointment. We want them to run better, faster, and stronger than they think is possible, all the while content with the desire to run such a grueling race.

As I was watching the race, I both marveled at the community surrounding the runners and sensed that there was something quietly familiar with the picture. It struck me that cheering for the runners reminded me of some of the finest sentiments that people can exhibit. There is tremendous freedom in loving something without constraints, even to the point of irrationality. With a boundless love, nothing is sacred. We can mold, shape, and influence the object of our love so that, in the end, it may look nothing like the thing we started with. That love wishes that the object be better, faster, and stronger than others might think is possible, all the while content with whatever the outcome might be. Such a love is rare because it is simply too easy to err in either direction. Love without change is pointless. Change without love is destructive. But the freedom to love something to the point of redemption is the finest of all virtues.

Having a Nature and Metaphysical Struggles: The Emotional Hangover

What does it mean to have a nature, an essence? Am I a bundle or a concrete particular with a certain set of properties? Well, I don’t fancy myself a bundle, and Nominalism in general seems false to me. I have written papers where I defend a substance view of humans, Substance Dualism (in a Thomistic sense, not Cartesian). However, I must confess that I would rather not believe in various bits of metaphysical realism such as abstract objects. Also, I am especially bothered by the fact that the property of Red, may not itself be Red. That just seems strange.

On the other hand, it seems right to me that the essential nature of a fish is to be in water. The problem of being a “fish out of water” is obvious and persuasive to me. No matter what anyone else might say, fish are supposed to be in water. That seems objectively clear, and NOT a matter of convention to me. Even those fish (if there are more than one KIND) that can survive outside of what for short periods of time are still generally supposed to be in the water. If this were not the case, we should be tempted to think of classifying the air loving fish as an amphibian or something all together different.

Furthermore, it seems right to me that I have a nature. I might even do things that go against my nature. For example, those childhood times where I have tried to fly have contributed to my overall sense of bodily discomfort presently. I think most people would agree to this generally.

However, the problems come quickly because the argument from nature is often used to defend various moral claims. An interesting spilt on this issue is homosexuality. Some want to appeal to nature (in a “thin sense”) and claim that homosexuality is simply determined by our genes. (I will not comment on the merit of this scientific evidence at this time). One’s nature (thinly) determines our sexual preference, it is argued, so they cannot be morally blame worthy for homosexuality. Now, what I, as a proponent of libertarian freedom, don’t like things that suggest that I did not choose. I occasionally entertain the thought I may have had influence on who my parents were to be. Granted, there are some things that in the end I must admit I cannot control about myself (e.g. what beliefs I directly choose, my parents, feelings, etc.). But I don’t have to like it.

On the other hand, others will claim that the human essence is by nature (thick, metaphysical sense) not supposed to be homosexual. Those who make this claim in a think sense are speaking much more deeply than referring to “plumbing.” The problem here is possibly my lack of information or possibly epistemic support. My question is “what is exactly are you ‘looking’ at to make such a judgment about natures?”
I am planning on finding out, about natures and who is looking at what. I want to know who is right, why she is right, and how does she know. What do you think? And what bothers you about your view?

The Balance of engagement

Side one: My instincts lead me away from television (I don't really watch much anyway) and many of the things in culture. I don't want to be like everyone else. I don't want my kids to be like everyone else. I want to be like Aquinas or Aristotle or someone Great. I want to make a difference in the world and not merely accept the current medium's of culture today. I want to be literate - that is read the Great books (plus books that are great)

Side two: While Novels are still important, it SEEMS that movies are the biggest push in culture. And who can really influence someone else if we are not engaging in the culture? It seems that one can best shape culture from within it. "In but not of" seems to be a good rule here.

So, what can we look at to know if "we" are in balance? Then, what ever it is we are looking at, how do we know we are interpreting the results correctly?

Here Jesus is a strange answer. Jesus was predictably unpredictable. However, He was always about His Father's will. This clears up the main stuff (torturing babies for fun is wrong, etc.), but it seems plausible that I could help the most by being truly counter-cultural; however, it could be argued that writing novels or movie scripts could have lots of impact too.

Maybe feeling the tension is what keeps us balancing His will and plan for our lives, but no matter how many times you walk the tight rope, you still get butter flies: It is still dangerous, and you can still fall.

Waiting for a phone call

So I'm sitting here, waiting for a phone call that will tell me where I live next year. It could be anywhere. New York? Maybe. San Francisco? Perhaps. Toledo, Ohio? Who knows. ;-)

It is, in all honesty, a bit unnerving. But at the same time, I get the sense that it's a wonderful opportunity to learn something about peace and patience. There is nothing I can do at this point to change my fate. The phone call will or will not come on its own terms. My choice is whether I will fill my time productively or if I will fill the hours with nervous energy. My hope is that I have the good virtue to wait with patience, filled with the peace of knowing that things like this always work for the best.

Now That's Experience!

What do you do with a man who runs a horse association so far into the ground that he's forced to resign?

Well, apparently you make him director of FEMA.

I'm hopeful that after the disaster that was hurricane Katrina, Congress has the foresight to legally require disaster management experience before receiving a high-level appointment in FEMA. While I'm really happy that Michael Brown had the good luck to be friends with President Bush, I'm saddened by the fact that the friendship actually cost people their lives.

We are a nation of almost three hundred million individuals. We deserve better.

Who Speaks for Evangelicalism?

Pat Robertson is at it again. Sparking worldwide controversy, Pat Robertson has recently called upon the United States to assassinate the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

This statement is worrisome for several reasons. First, from a political standpoint, it's absolutely absurd to think that the United States could benefit from the political assasination of an inflammatory South American leader. Robertson compared the United States' relationship with Chavez with our military action in Iraq, which not only is a poor argument, but also offers an interesting glimpse into the extreme right's conception of what justifies military action. The war in Iraq, of course, was justified primarily because of a perceived threat due to the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. Bolstering these considerations were various references to Saddam's despicable human rights record, and the need for a fresh change in Iraq. This, of course, is simply not the situation in Venezuela. There are no allegations of weapons of mass destruction, and no allegations of mass graves. Instead, the United States' difficulties with Chavez center on complaints of region destabalization and illicit support of Castro's regime in Cuba. In sum, Robertson believes that political assasination, as a cheap and easy alternative to preemptive war, is justified simply as a means of batting away a gnat. This is not only politically absurd but also a frightful support for unbridled American hegemony.

From a spiritual standpoint, these kinds of comments are terrible because they cast a terrible shadow over evangelicalism. Does this man speak for Christians? What are intelligent people supposed to think when they hear a Christian make such awful comments? God help us.

My hope, though, is for a high-profile Christian to stand up and condemn the arguments. It doesn't have to be political, even. The response need only point out the obvious. Political assasination is, at this point at least, illegal. Encouraging the military to violate United States law is not only unethical, it's unchristian.

Morals and the Relationship to Religion: A Response to Paul

To read the comments that sparked this post click here. Paul, there are times I appreciate sarcasm, so I will make my comments assuming that you have a serious point (rather than being flippant or simply an ass). Although I admit my post was loose, I was trying to draw attention to the questions and issues more than taking sides. For the record, the last thing in my experience to help morals is “organized religion.” However, I think that a culture of true spirituality (for lack of better words) will create more religious people as a result. With respect to your comments this seems to be sufficient justification for my post and the article that inspired it.

On the other hand, with respect to religion, the very idea of a moral code seems to me religious. What I mean is that moral codes generally assert a set of values based on an ultimate principle. By ultimate principle I mean that is accepted without any other argument (read CS Lewis Abolition of Man). In short, moral codes generally take certain values by faith. This seems to be the nature of worldviews. So, I do not assume Christianity is necessary or the Old Testament literature for humanity be moral.

However, in defense of the Old Testament I must say that if its account is true, then nothing is excluded with respect to time. The Old Testament begins with the creation of the universe, so their would be no “prior to” the timeline of its account. What is not debatable is that moral people existed before Moses wrote down the initial books. In fact, there are many moral Old Testament figures that make moral choices and are held accountable for infractions before Moses and the big ten (Adam comes to mind).

It is obvious that not everyone in the past was murdered (hello!). But, need we have anything like a moral code or morality not to kill other people? Also when do we start counting people as everybody? Why not start with ants? Where should we draw lines? If you don’t think we should, why not draw the line around various obnoxious people and wipe them out? It seems like the wrongness of that just emerges. If it does not, then what grounds do we have to call it immoral or moral? I think there are a few possible explanations of moral people before Moses, and some of them seem probable or sufficient. When you speak of morals how do you avoid the problem of the criterion?

Along another train of thought, what is “statistical truth?” When using any sort of induction or abduction (argument from the best explanation) (including your comments) one does not (and cannot) guarantee the truth of what he or she is saying; thus, some sort of probability (with chances less than one and greater than zero) of the event must be mentioned. I am trying to make sense of “statistical” because it seems rational for me to think in terms of probabilities when speaking of the future based on the past (contra the impression from you comment). Further, my my post was mostly a set of questions designed to “prime the pump” for the link I provided. What exactly are you referring to, and do you mean in my post or Vitagliano's?

Moreover what do you mean by “truth?” I am assuming a correspondence theory (what are you assuming?). I don’t think that truth is a degreed property. Something is either truth, false or neither. I could be wrong about that, but the counter examples I know of can defeated. In this case either the statistics are true or false. Actaully, it is the inference from statistics at issue here. What counter-argument do you have against my thoughts?

Although your comments seem to be without charity, I appreciate how your comments have challenged me to reflect on my views. If I have time I will generate a more robust post on this topic in the fall. I the mean time, do good Paul.