# data[].attributes.body
As a Christian Studies major (and just as a Christian for that matter), this class (and the Honors program as a whole) intrigued me as to what exactly Athens has to do with Jerusalem; what does this philosophy stuff have to do with my own faith? Accordingly, you can see this inquiry play out in my posts and the topics I chose to engage. See posts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10.

Of all the philosophers we studied, only Kierkegaard and Lewis were Christians. Yet, many of the secular philosophers (except Frued [that man was crazy]) had valuable input to share. Sartre’s freedom caught my attention due to its drastic implications and the fact that it “seems legit.” His assertion that “man is condemned to be free” and “you are only the sum of your actions” were ideas I had not previously pondered. Yet, the interplay of man’s free will and God’s sovereignty was certainly something I’ve discussed at length. Man cannot be completely predestined and God remain just in His wrath (depending on who you ask), but yet there is certainly an element of predestination and foreknowledge on God’s part. Simultaneously, the text is clear that man will be fully culpable for his actions in the end. Thus, Sartre’s assertion that we are a sum of our actions resonated with me in that God’s sovereignty in no way negates the influence and wake of our decisions, both sinful or good. Then, Nietzsche’s concept of the Ubermensch hit me in the way he advocated becoming one; that man ought to own up to his envy to become that which he is envious of. Nietzsche’s critiques of Christianity’s statues were eye-opening as well. They did not stray me from my faith but clued me in to how the world may perceive our “humility” and “forgiveness” as weakness and “the inability to take revenge.” It certainly made me question my motives in striving for Sermon-on-the-Mount-Ethics. Rorty made me wonder whether black or white issues are not as they seem. Kant made me question whether I am actually thinking for myself (as I so often think I am) or if I am simply believing I’m a critical thinker like my classes teach me to be, when in reality I’m just regurgitating the southern Baptist stance on various issues. Sartre also made me consider whether my Christianity is in bad faith and whether I will make something of my life. I’m tempted to think I’m predestined for this or that and have no say in the matter, but Sartre reminded me this is not true, and Kierkegaard assured me there is no “wrong” decision, only regretful ones. So go ahead, make a choice.

In addition to “what does philosophy have to do with my Christian faith,” another prominent theme on my wall was “what does philosophy have to do with today?” Same as with the Bible, people often wonder what such historical thought has to do with any modern convenience or event and I sought to tease that out. See all posts

In accordance with my love of music, I tended to look for echoes (or direct references) to philosophy and philosophers in various songs. I found Nietzsche to be popular among rap artists (and Kelly Clarkson) in his ubermensch musings and “that which does not kill you makes you stronger” quote. I also searched for references to the nature of truth in modern day America. I researched how our current generation sees Truth/truth and how they go about getting there. I sought out various articles which counter acted my faith (mainly popular news outlets) along with website which bolstered it (Christianitytoday and the like). I certainly went into every padlet post and every honors reading with a heaping pile of Christian presuppositions and I typically acknowledged that (although I’m sure it leaked through unbeknownst at certain points).

It seems to me, after reading philosophers, and reading current articles, that the majority of people eschew objective truth. Subjectivism is certainly popular in many situations as it allows truth to be fluid and molded into situational needs, yet other times it tempts tragedy. Objectivism has a propensity to do this as well though. Christians believe certain sins are objectively wrong and this often comes into conflict with the popular opinion. Masses see our “hatred” as a subjective evaluation of extra-marital affairs, homosexual lifestyles, premarital sexcapades, and alcoholism (to name a few). We are seen as reverting to hatred as our preferred perspective while they cry love. Yet, we see it as an obdurate reality, unwilling to compromise with changing times. Thus, it comes down to the nature of truth.

Reading these philosophers helped me to realize there are actually some solid arguments for truth being “fuzzy” as Rorty would say, or for “facts being precisely what there is not; only interpretations” as Nietzsche would assert. Prior to this class and this research, I would have denied the possibility of any solid argument for such non-Christian stances (yet, in doing so I espouse my unequivocal biases and bigotry). It helped me to see that, even though I fundamentally disagree with universal subjectivism, there is certainly a place for it. My saying “my head hurts” is a subjective truth, irrefutable in nature, yet untestable and inconclusive to anyone besides me. The readings have helped me to see a wider scope of Truth/truth than I had prior.

To go back to my non-trespassing post, I now see how one can assert such a (at least to me) preposterous proposition. But, philosophers from various eras have all seen morality in varying lights and a good portion have admitted that their perception is quite possibly inaccurate or fluid. Perhaps mine is as well, yet I prefer to hold fast to my objective Truth beliefs, not because I’m afraid of subjectivism as Freud would say (or the college student in Aiden’s Ravi Zacharias post), but because I see it as holding the most philosophical, theological, hermeneutical, teleological, epistemological, and commonsense-ological water, over and against perspectivism/subjectivism. Thank you anyway Freud, Lyotard, Nietzsche, Rorty, Sartre, and others, I’ll make my free choice to believe objective truth rooted in God, and perhaps…just perhaps I’ll regret it @Kierkegaard, but either way I’ll just die in the end @Nietzsche&everyexistentialist

# data[].attributes.headline
A Rant- "C.S. Lewis: A Trojan Horse of Bad Theology?"  (Post #10)

# data[].attributes.subject
A Rant- "C.S. Lewis: A Trojan Horse of Bad Theology?"  (Post #10)

# data[].attributes.body
C.S. Lewis is renown for his Christian literature and the large shadow he casts over modern Christian philosophy and authorship. He is adored by many and his writings are taken at face value by many Christians with zero critical analysis or second thought.

Yet, upon further investigation, Lewis is seen to have some controversial beliefs. He believes in an open view of Genesis; that perhaps evolution is true and in accordance with the biblical creation account (in that man may have existed for centuries prior to becoming what the Bible calls "man" before God breathed life into him). He also believes in a more inclusive gospel than traditional evangelicals- those who do works in alignment with Christ's teaching are counted as His (whether or not they know it). He also believed in a less traditional view of innerancy, stating that the Bible's metanarrative was innerrant in the traditional sense, but that not every word should be read as such. Instead it should be properly interpreted and carefully considered to discern its overall meaning.

Now, in my opinion, only one of those views is decisively unorthodox, one is "fuzzy" and the other is almost in alignment with my own. Yet, this article https://the-end-time.org/2016/08/12/c-s-lewis-a-trojan-horse-for-bad-theology/ would have you believe Lewis is quite a monster. So before you read it, let me poison you against it.

First, the author, when explaining why evangelicals should doubt the validity of Lewis' faith (quite a bold and judgemental claim for a fellow Christian), he cites the fact that Lewis smoke and drank. So let me kindly remind the author, Elizabeth, that both of those things are not inherent sins. Further, I wonder if she'd question C.H. Spurgeon's salvation on account of him enjoying "a good cigar to the glory of God." Likely not. Shut up Elizabeth.

Second,  she out-of-context-proof-texts Lewis saying that he disagreed with the doctrine of Total Depravity (which he and Elizabeth, and most Christians misundertstand) as evidence for his lost status.

Third, she cites the fact that Lewis had no fame in his own day as meaning his current fame is unwarranted (Elizabeth, see Nietzsche, Van Gogh, Galileo, Poe, etc...). She also says this is because the "Present Age" is apathetic and uncritical of their own religion. While perhaps true, what the heck of the Christianity of Lewis day? Likely not much different. And if Elizabeth was as critical of her own beliefs as she is of Lewis, perhaps she would see the errors I'm pointing out to you.

Fourth, she cites his belief in purgatory (among other things) as warranting hell fire. Are all catholics walking in damnation Elizabeth? Goodness.

Fifth, she condemns Lewis but covertly condones Benny Hinn (a famous heretic/prosperity pastor).

Sixth, her list of damning qualities in Lewis never mention the "unforgivable sin"- blasphemy (or apostasy). So why exactly is Lewis going to hell?

Seventh (more nit-picky), she misuses the phrase "begging the question." Gah.

So Elizabeth, why don't you put down the pen and pick up a book. Not a Lewis book (heaven forbid you post another article), but a biblical commentary or perhaps a book on first-order Christian doctrines. Because I have about as much evidence to damn you to Hell as you do Lewis. It was not my pleasure to read your article.

To my classmates: Are you as disgusted by Elizabeth as myself? Are you as disgusted at my post as I am at Elizabeth? Do you think C.S. Lewis is a heretic? Just slightly wrong? Completely right? Someone to view as the hallmark of the faith? Are any of my grievances flawed? Why?

# data[].attributes.body
*Language Disclaimer*

So while definitely not trespassing on a property near Main St in Anderson, I stumbled upon this carefully articulated and expertly executed treatise on how the delinquent community feels about the morals and moral codes of today.

For those who cannot decipher the eloquent message, it succinctly says "F*** Morals"

This Andersonian philosophy is vaguely reminiscent of Nietzsche's take on morality (or the absence of). Nietzsche thought that when people mused about what was and was not moral, they were asking the wrong question and philosophizing about the wrong thing. To him, morality did not exist, it was simply an illusion which we have thought on so long that we have forgotten it is an illusion. (Thus, it took a brilliant iconoclast like Nietzsche to be the only human being alive to see such a tragic flaw and bring the populous' attention to it)
He thought that the question was much less is this "right or wrong", but is this "strong or weak?" The weak would never be able to embrace and exploit their envy in a manner effective enough to actualize into an ubermensch. Instead, they would die quietly, never having achieved the strength of what could have been; likely having wasted time musing about moral issues.

Likewise, these post-modern philosophical Andersonian delinquents perhaps shared Nietzsche's sentiment that morality is not the issue. Instead, just as Nietzsche thought morals were irrelevant and an illusion, these up-and-coming scholars surmise in more colorful language that morals (perhaps just the conception of morals) ought to be...done away with.

How does this make you feel? Do you agree with Nietzsche? If the question is not "is this right or wrong" then what is it? If morality is an illusion, what does that leave us with (besides the illusion of reality)? And what do you think these artists meant by this graffiti conjecture? (And can you guess where this was taken?)

# data[].attributes.body
(CAUTION: CUSS WORDS BELOW)

Last week I discussed one tenet of Sartre's conception of bad faith. While the explanation in post #7 sums up the majority of its characteristics, there is another lens through which it can be viewed.
In this view, bad faith means acting against what one believes to be right, or going against one's convictions.
In my affinity for 90's rap, I immediately thought of an example of this in the iconic rapper, Biggie Smalls' song- "Suicidal Thoughts." In the song, Smalls is having a phone conversation with his friend on a night where Smalls is feeling unusually downcast, to the point of contemplating suicide. Yet, in thinking of the afterlife, B.I.G. reasons that he does not want the pristine heavenly experience most people discuss. It simply does not suit him. He would not be comfortable there and would be living contrary to what he knows to be his nature.
The artist raps, "When I die, f**k it, I wanna go to hell. 'Cause I'm a piece of s**t, it ain't hard to f***ing tell. It don't make sense going to Heaven with the goodie-goodies, dressed in white. I like black Tims and black hoodies. [...] Hangin' with the goodie-goodies, loungin' in paradise. F**k that s**t. I wanna tote guns and shoot dice."
Sidenote: (seems understood but) Tims are the shoes. Shoot dice means to gamble.
Essentially, Biggie Smalls is saying he likes his lifestyle. He was a drug dealer beginning at 13, he grew up surrounded by the ghettos, he carried a pistol, robbed people, rode in black suburbans, had a posse, rapped about killing people, carried on many affairs, and amassed an impressive empire in the short time he was on the hip-hop scene. He had no problem with his lifestyle and in fact, preferred it to his conception of heaven: a stale place where God will put you on restrictions from and for the sins you enjoyed during life. (despite the heresy, we'll go with it)
Had Smalls been forced into this environment, he would have been acting against everything he stood for. He would have been, in Sartre's eyes, acting in bad faith. If he wants to sleep in all day, indulge in chronic sexual relations, or wear all black, he feels he ought to. But, in this depiction, he is hindered and restricted by God. Thus, he cannot in good faith enter into Heaven. He would prefer hell.
Accordingly in other songs, Biggie (real name: Christopher Wallace) while mocking Satan, raps, "Move over Lucifer, I'm more ruthless yo" and when threatening his enemies, "See what that slick s**t brought ya? A first class ticket to Lucifer- real name Christopher"
To act in good faith, the Notorious B.I.G. would have had to go to (his conception) of Hell.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger- who? (Post #6)

# data[].attributes.subject
What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger- who? (Post #6)

# data[].attributes.body
There is a temptation today to dismiss Nietzsche's influence on philosophy and modern thought simply because his name is seldom mentioned. This however would be a mistake, seeing as his influence stems even to modern music as explained below.
Nietzsche was the philosopher who coined the iconic phrase "that which does not kill you makes you stronger." This concept, and various paraphrases of this quote are sprinkled through modern music.
Perhaps most notably is Kelly Clarkson's song "Stronger" in which she famously sings, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger! Stand a little taller! Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone" These lyrics greatly echo Nietzsche's scheme of the will to power along with his revaluation of values. Sadly though, nowhere in her music, nor in any interviews, does Clarkson give credit where it is due. The same goes for other artists who appropriate this quote such as the Plain White Tees, and Kanye West.
In fact, Kanye West found himself in a lawsuit between himself and artist, Vincent Peters, for West's song "Stronger." Vincent claimed Kanye stole his line, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" which he believed he had originally come up with. The judge ruled in favor of West, stating that the line was originally said by Nietzsche centuries prior, despite neither artist having acknowledging this.
Do you believe artist's should acknowledge the influence former people have had on their music? Do you believe it is alright to quote others without giving credit? Or just because someone said it before you, does that mean you can't say it without quoting them? Should Clarkson have attributed her song to Nietzsche? But Nietzsche and his close relatives are all dead.....so does it really even matter?
Sidenote: A 90s rapper and artist- Tupac Shakur- added his own spin to Nietzsche's quote by saying, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, but [screws] you up mentally."

# data[].attributes.headline
Kant's Categorical Imperative vs. Common Sense (Post #3)

# data[].attributes.subject
Kant's Categorical Imperative vs. Common Sense (Post #3)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw
This Crash Course video explicitly lays out the basis of Kantian Ethics for those of us who are unfamiliar.
Essentially, Kant believed that the objective morals of the universe could be determined by adhering to two categorical imperatives.
1. Never treat another human simply as a means rather than as an end
2. The action must be able to be made a universal law without contradiction (meaning, if you can do it, then everyone should be able to do it.)
The example Mr. Green gives for when this goes awry is when someone tells a lie to protect a person's whereabouts. If this lie turns out to get the person killed, then their blood is on the liar's head.  Yet, if the person tells the truth and the other one still dies, their blood is only on the killer's head because the first person respected the moral law that not everyone can lie without contradiction.

This system of ethics however, has been critiqued
as being very complicated compared to a simple "Will this bring unnecessary harm to others?" or "Does this better society?"

So with that in mind, how do you feel about this meme? https://78.media.tumblr.com/0329226fb8d8eaee76062ce9dae12bf3/tumblr_onudp5qC341w40328o1_500.png
Which system do you think should prevail?

Also, consider the story of Ruth and her famous lie. According to Kant, she was not justified in such an action, yet according to Scripture she is justified by being shown in Christ's lineage. What do you think?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Interplay of Free Will, Determinism, and Your Actions (Post #5)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Interplay of Free Will, Determinism, and Your Actions (Post #5)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22tier.html
This article explores the age old venture of whether or not humanity has free will along with the interplay of moral responsibility based on one's answer. I.e. if we do not have free will, how culpable are you for your actions and how does your belief affect your choices? If we do have free will, does the culpability increase from what you had in a deterministic universe?
Social psychologists went around presenting pedestrians with two situations and asking if the individuals depicted should be held morally responsible.
1. A  man cheats on his taxes every year
2. A man falls in love with his secretary and resolves to murder his family in order to be with her
Most people absolved the first man of responsibility but showed no mercy to the second. So the psychologists questions were "Why? Where is the line? What made you answer like this? How does your answer affect how you live"
For some people, before they asked them about the two men, they exposed them to scientific research that weakened the notion of free will. They found those who had not seen this research were more likely to condemn man #2 but those who had seen the research cut #2 more slack.
Their conclusion was that the belief in free will leads people to make morally upright decisions more often than not and to not fall victim to apathy.
Do you think Sartre would agree with this notion? He says man is a sum of his actions and is fully culpable as such. Would he agree that to think otherwise would desecrate the human moral drive?
Do you believe Freud, who characterized a person's personality as a result of their upbringing and environmental factors, would agree that to live as such would absolve an individual of moral responsibility?
Can you personally live with such an outlook? It is mentally possible to live looking at every single action and event as a product of uncontrollable forces? If so what does that do to your moral convictions? Does it affect them positively or negatively?
Finally, how do you feel about man #1? How about man #2? Who is held responsible? Is one more responsible than the other for their actions? Why? Does it have to do with taking a life? Where is the line? Or is there even a line or is it a subjective ocean of gray?

# data[].attributes.body
https://newrepublic.com/article/121564/gods-and-profits-how-capitalism-and-christianity-aligned-america
In this article, the author,  Elizabeth Bruenig, explores how the Christianity in America intertwines with the Capitalism so deeply rooted in this land.
The author attributes a good portion of Christian's earlier affinity for Capitalism to the preacher James Fifield Jr., a prosperity driven pastor influenced heavily by Max Weber. He preached to wealthy societies in LA in the early to mid 1900s and founded a national convention known as "Spiritual Mobilization." Using his platform to further his capitalist agenda, he successfully wed Christianity with economic gain in the minds of his parishioners.
This is only one of many individuals named in the article who contributed to Protestantism's typical love of capitalistic society.
Further on, Bruenig brings up the topic of capitalistic prophets as used by Max Weber. These "prophets" "detested minutiae, insisted upon abstraction, and pushed dizzyingly powerful narratives." Weber spoke of Christianity as the prophet who endorsed Capitalism in his day. Today Bruenig attributes this prophetic office to influential individuals such as Oprah, the headships/exemplars of Capitalism.
Yet she makes the startling point that it is primarily American Christians who propound capitalism as Christian. She goes on to cite the way Pope Francis and many other catholics abroad (yes, they're still Christian) have no qualms about bashing the notion that capitalism is Christian. In fact, even European protestants seem to share that sentiment.

So- do you think these accusations are grounded? If you harbor a conception of capitalism that casts it in a Christian light can this be attributed to your country or the Bible? Is it the fault of the founding fathers? Is it a fault at all? Is Christianity objectively capitalistic? Are the catholics and protestants of Europe in the fault for denying Christianity's support of capitalism? Is their view nothing more than an ethnocentric conception of the scripture due to their country's Parliament? Are you a hypocrite if you said yes?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/nietzsche-ideas-superman-slavery-nihilism-adolf-hitler-nazi-racism-white-supremacy-fascism-a8138396.html
In this article, the author examines Nietzche's views of slavery along with those enslaved.
Despite a good bit of today's Nietzsche followers attempting to gloss over these not-so-attractive philosophical points, this author affirms that Nietzsche was in fact pro-slavery and was actually disgusted at the notion of emancipation.
He thought the African Americans of his time resembled the primeval man, and he believed the Chinese were suitable as "industrious ants."
According to the author, a majority of people see Nietzsche as a proponent of "self-liberation" without examining the tight hold he retained on slave holding and how he considered it a commendable practice. He, in fact, stated the German society would be in dire trouble if they were to exercise emancipation.
The author ends by saying if we were to actually examine Nietzche in this light, it would drastically challenge our humanistic ideals and "make his dangerous thinking even more dangerous."

So: Do you think he ought to be read in light of his views on slavery? How do you think this would impact one's impression of Nietzsche? Are his views on slavery contradictory to his other philosophical positions?

# data[].attributes.body
http://i.imgur.com/j9INa2e.jpg In this Calvin and Hobbes comic, Calvin goes completely against the philosophy of Sartre by proposing determinism via the starts and thus the loss of man's culpability for his actions

# data[].attributes.headline
What Will You Do With Your Life? (Week #7 Post)

# data[].attributes.subject
What Will You Do With Your Life? (Week #7 Post)

# data[].attributes.body
Bad faith, for Sartre, is when someone believes that they have no choice but to undergo a certain course of action because its what they are destined to be. They have no choice in the matter.

He gives the example of a waiter who does his absolute best to conform to being a waiter because thats what he believes he is destined to do. He thinks to himself, "I can't not be a waiter. This is the course of my life. To deviate would be treacherous and near impossible. No. I have to be what I am. I must be true to myself." While this may sound like some sort of "stay true to yourself" self-help kinda thing, Sartre would have considered this a dangerous mindset.

Sartre believed man was condemned to be free. Thus, one needed to accept that and act accordingly. You are nothing more than a sum of your actions, and your actions have infinite possibilities. There is no place in existence where it is acceptable to say "I had no choice!" or "This is simply my lot in life." No. I had the freedom to not write this post. I could have thrown my laptop out the window of my townhome, let it shatter on the ground, packed a get-out-of-town bag and drove my Subaru to the outskirts of Boston. I could have ditched it there, set it on fire, then wandered into the cold Massachusetts woods never to be heard from again. I COULD. But I will not, because it is not what I most want to do. What I most want to do is be a good steward of my opportunity for education, thus I wrote this post. So I believe I am acting in good faith.

Yet, for yourself, ask "Am I acting in good or bad faith?" Do you ever sit there contemplating why you are doing your specific major? Why you are at this specific university? If so, and the answer you concoct is "because I have no choice," then you are sorely mistaken. Certainly your options are limited. You cannot attend Harvard simply on good merit. You cannot buy a new car without money. BUT, you CAN change a major. You can transfer. You can be friends with the people you hate if you try. You have the freedom endowed to all mankind to be able to choose a course of action. So understand you are not chained to your life's trajectory, but you can change course.

What will you do? Anything? Are you acting in good or bad faith? What would be some examples of each? Or are we sadly destined to be what we will be? Is the aforementioned waiter born to be a waiter and meant to die a waiter?