# data[].attributes.body
A lot of our discussions lately have revolved around truth being either objective or subjective, and how they are balanced with each other. Then today, we also introduced the topic of tolerance. This cartoon brings in both elements in a very real way. Of course, these are statements that no one would actually make, but we see the effects of this type of thinking throughout society. Tolerance has become something our society demands but rarely practices. So what is the solution? With how far we have gone with it, it is difficult to say that there really is a solution to be found anymore. As Christians, I think this shows us even more the importance of being grounded in our faith, because our society is constantly shifting and unstable.

# data[].attributes.body
The biggest thing I took from our discussions this week was the idea of objective vs. subjective truth. Thus, that is exactly what I am posting about. When searching for opinions about this topic, I did not intend to search for one from a Christian website; in fact, I was actually trying to avoid that, because I was fairly sure of what side they would argue. Though the website I found, as a Christian website, did indeed argue for objective truth, I found it interesting in his presentation of it, as well as his focus not on truth, but on moral truth. His arguments demonstrate the importance of Christians to clearly understand when truth, specifically moral truth, is and is not objective. He doesn't shy away from the arguments in the "gray" area, about lying to save someone's life, and things like that. But the phrase he wrote that really stuck out to me was, "The culture has effectively eroded our confidence in objective moral truth claims." I though this article presented a lot of strong ideas and their importance in our daily life, so it is definitely worth the read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I get the opportunity to train church groups all the time and I relish the chance to talk about the nature of truth. Brett Kunkle and I have been taking a similar approach in this training, offering a "Truth Test" to Christian groups across the country. We begin by describing the difference between "objective" truth (which is rooted in the nature of the object under consideration and transcends the opinions of any subject considering this object), and "subjective" truth (which is rooted in the opinions and beliefs of the subjects who hold them and vary from person to person). We provide several examples of truth claims and ask groups to tell us whether the statements are subjective or objective.

Objective vs. Subjective Truth Claims
As an example, we offer the proposition, "Jim's car is a Hyundai". Is this an objective claim or a subjective claim? It is clearly objective. My car is either a Hyundai or it is not, and my personal opinion will not change this fact. The truth is rooted in the nature of the object, the Hyundai automobile, and it is not dependent upon my subjective opinion. Now let's examine another claim: "Hyundai's are the coolest (hippest) cars". This second claim is highly personal depending on what each of us considers "hip" or "cool". Our opinion about this is rooted in each of us as subjects who hold varying opinions about "hipness" or "coolness". See the difference? "1+1=2" is an objective truth statement; "Math is fun" is a subjective claim.

Objective Spiritual Claims
But it seems to get trickier for people when they begin to move away from physical realities or math facts. Consider the following claim: "God exists". Surprisingly, many Christian groups I work with struggle to define this statement as objective. But the existence of God is either a true reality or it is not, and our personal opinion is not going to change this reality. It is something we can either acknowledge or reject, but doing so does not change the reality of God's existence. Does that make sense? Spiritual truth claims about the existence of God are objective, they are rooted in the object under consideration: God. He either exists or He does not; my opinion won't change that fact.

Objective Moral Claims
At some point toward the end of our "Truth Test," Brett and I will begin to post moral claims such as, "Premarital sex is morally wrong." Now things usually get interesting as the Christians in our groups struggle to decide if there are such things as objective moral claims. Some are very uncomfortable identifying this statement as an objective truth claim. It's one thing to say that we, as Christians, might believe this statement to be true, but some Christians hesitate to say this is a truth claim that transcends those who don't accept our Christian values. The culture has effectively eroded our confidence in objective moral truth claims. The new cultural definition of "tolerance" obliges us to embrace all truth claims as equally valid or true. This is an important re-definition, because classic "tolerance" acknowledges disagreement and allows each person to hold an opposing view without having to embrace the other view as equally true. Classic tolerance requires us to endure and respect the people who hold opposing views, even as we resist these views themselves.

The Evidence of Objective Moral Truth
As a result, those of us who fail to respect and retain the classic definition of tolerance are far more likely to deny the existence of objective moral truth claims. That's why it's so important for us to be able to provide evidence of such claims. If there are examples of moral claims that transcend time, individuals and culture, we've got evidence of transcendent objective moral truth. Let me offer such evidence.

There are many examples of moral behaviors that must be interpreted within a situational context in order to determine their "rightness" or "wrongness". Consider these important moral questions: Is stealing wrong? (What if you are stealing the detonation code to a terrorist's nuclear bomb that would otherwise kill millions of innocent people?) Is it wrong to lie? (What if I have to lie to accomplish the theft of the very same code?) See the problem? There are many classically "immoral" behaviors that could be rendered moral if the circumstances were different! But once we add a simple expression to the end of our moral questions, everything changes. Is it every right to steal for the fun of it? Is it ever right to lie for the fun of it? The mere goal of experiencing joy (or fun) is NEVER proper justification for doing what would otherwise be considered immoral or wrong. As a police officer, there are times when I may be justified in using deadly force, but I am NEVER justified in taking a life for the mere fun of it. When we add these few words to the end of our moral questions we discover a plethora of objective moral truth claims that transcend time and culture. It is NEVER right, regardless of location or time in history) to lie, steal, cheat, kill (etc., etc., etc.) for the mere fun of it.

And if we can provide evidence that objective truth claims such as these are a reality in our universe, we must eventually account for such objective, transcendent moral laws. Precisely what kind of transcendent moral lawgiver is required if these kinds of moral laws exist? When Christians are unable to think clearly about the nature of objective moral truth, they lose an important piece of evidence related to the existence of God. That's why it's so important for us to continue to train Christians to think clearly about the issue of objective moral truth.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner's Daily Email

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Objective Truth Is One Thing, But Objective Moral Truth Is Another | Cold Case Christianity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Christians are unable to think clearly about the nature of objective moral truth, they lose an important piece of evidence related to the existence of God.

# data[].attributes.body
When we wrote responses to a similar question for the process day on Thursday, I think I just wanted to hear other people's point of view on why philosophy does or doesn't matter, specifically in regards to that which we have been reading. I think philosophy has merit, if only for its effort of asking hard questions and not shying away from the search from difficult answers. I found this video where someone gives other reasons why it matters and why it should be taught in the school systems, like it apparently is in other countries. Though I don't think some of his points were as strong as he might have, they are at least attempts to make practical applications out of what we are currently studying, and what he seems to think everyone should have a basic knowledge of.

# data[].attributes.body
Obviously, the way I titled this post, in Nietzsche's opinion, does not end with a question mark. In fact, his Parable of the Mad Man ends it with an emphatic exclamation point. Time Magazine doesn't seem quite so sure. In 1966 the cover of perhaps the most iconic magazine company simply asked, "Is God Dead?" (For a funny but adamant response, Christianity Today's magazine then came out with a cover looking exactly the same but saying "God is Not Dead Yet.") However, a few years later in 1969 Time had a new question and a new cover to ask it on: "Is God Coming Back to Life?" Unfortunately, I couldn't read the whole of either headline article, because Time Magazine wants money and I am a poor college student. But I think the covers and the sequential order speak for themselves in many ways. We talked a bit in class about whether or not Christianity will have (or has recently had) a resurgence, whether it is simply moving to different areas of the world, or whether the end times will soon come to pass and Christianity will witness a gradual decline with no revival. But the fact that Time Magazine came back only three years later about the resurrection of the God they had just considered dead seems pretty interesting in this discussion. I can't say a whole lot without reading the articles, but its definitely something to chew on.

# data[].attributes.body
I think, with a lot of the things we read either in Honors class or in general, it is easy to rather immediately agree or disagree with whatever standpoint the text is taking, especially when those standpoints relate to worldviews, philosophy, religion, etc. However, I liked this articles by the North American Mission Board because it doesn't immediately disregard all of postmodernist thought, but tries to objectively evaluate it. Of course, one of the values it sees in postmodernism is the recognition that we are speaking from a biased view point, and the fact that this article is put out by the NAMB is clear evidence of bias, they make good points in both directions, as well as how to confront postmodernist thought with our faith.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In my other essay, "What Is Postmodernism?", I briefly discussed the context for postmodernism's emergence, what it is, and what are its chief characteristics. Here I look at lessons to be learned from postmoderns, problems with much of postmodern thought, and how to communicate our faith more effectively with postmoderns.
1. Lessons To Learn from Postmoderns
What are some lessons we can learn from and connections we can make with postmoderns?

a. Christians should be suspicious of certain modernist claims of scientific or philosophical certainty. We are limited, we "see in a mirror dimly" and "know in part" (1 Cor. 13:12, NASB). Much of what we know is probable, highly probable, or plausible-not 100 percent certain-but this does not mean we do not truly know things. We just need to be a bit more modest in our knowledge claims.

b. Christians should recognize that we all have biases and are limited by our place in history and by our culture. Modernist thinking stresses that knowledge and reason are unbiased and neutral. Postmodernism should prompt Christians toward greater humility. We Christians should acknowledge our biases and perspectives (which are not wrong in themselves) and our propensity for self-deception. Where we know we are wrong, we must align our lives with the way things really are. Now, if anyone denies there can be a God's-eye view at all, he would be an atheist/non-theist of some stripe. But if God exists, then there is a God's-eye view of things-and it just may be that God has revealed some of this view of things to human beings so that they can really know.

c. Postmodernism rightly sees the danger of optimistic utopianianism; postmoderns remind us of our great capacity to fail (Christians would include "sin" here) as well as to oppress "the other." We humans are prone to self-deception and rationalization. Our deep sinfulness prevents achieving earthbound utopias. We must be routinely self-critical and wary of values opposing God's kingdom, which can easily creep into our minds. However, our key interpretive grid (hermeneutic) should not be one of suspicion, but of trust and charity, which enhances relationships with God and others.

d. We should appreciate cultural/ethnic diversity (rather than treating people as "other") and show much grace towards non-Christians since we ourselves have been saved by God's grace. Colonialism, oppression, and slavery do not inevitably follow from Christian belief. The Bible expresses sensitivity to the weak, the suffering, and the oppressed such as orphans, widows, and the alien. God Himself suffers with us (see Matt. 25:31-46; Acts 9:4). Christians must show that their "grand story" is both plausible and not inherently oppressive; rather, we are created by God to flourish when we are rightly related to him and others. Because we are recipients of God's grace, we have no right to think of ourselves as superior to non-Christians. Moreover, Christianity has its share of diversity or multiplicity in expressing faith (e.g., note the diversity between the Amish and Egypt's Coptic Christian Church).

2. Problems with Postmodernism
Despite areas of common affirmation, Christians must also be critical of certain postmodern assumptions.

a. The majority of postmodern philosophers simply presume atheism rather than defend it. These intellectual heirs of Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre are predominantly negative in their theological orientation, and they seem content to remain there. Many of these thinkers also make the illegitimate leap from questioning whether we can even speak of God to denying his existence altogether. ¹ Given the impressive resurgence of theism and arguments for God's existence over the last forty years, such a presumption is all the more startling.

b. Postmodernists should be exposed for their tendency simply to substitute one system or metanarrative for another. Postmodernism rejects or is suspicious of any grand story by which we may make sense of our experience and reality. Postmodernism allows for plenty of mini-narratives of individuals or cultures or philosophical perspectives, but that is all. However, this rejection of metanarratives becomes self-refuting: we have a totalizing grand story that attempts to make sense of or interpret all of reality and human experience in the form of lesser narratives: it's a grand story that denies grand stories!²

So we should ask those who say that there is no grand story, "Isn't this itself a grand story, not just my individual story?" We ask those who deny we can have access to reality, "How do you know we can't have access to reality unless you yourself have access to it so that you can tell the rest of us?" What of those who say, "It's all perspective" - isn't that just their perspective? If it is, then it is trivial (it is just one of many perspectives); if it is not, then it is self-refuting (it is a sweeping, universal statement that applies to all persons and cultures). The same is true with those who claim that there are no facts (only interpretations), that we shape our own reality, that there is no objective intention of the author, that language prevents us from having access to reality, etc. These views are impaled on one of two horns of the following dilemma:

The postmodern says nothing: "It's all perspective" (which here simply means "what I believe is what I believe").

The postmodern contradicts himself: "It's all perspective" (which here means, "It's the case that nothing's the case").

Proper response: "There's no reason anyone else should believe it."

Proper response: "That's a claim to objectivity-that there's no objectivity."

Princeton philosopher Diogenes Allen notes how postmodernism often exhibits a dogmatic certainty about uncertainty, "the only way it can hold its view of human life and of the universe is to forget that the limitations that imprison others to a time and place apply to it as well." ³

c. We can have objective knowledge, even if we are not absolutely certain. And even though we are limited, we can still know things that are true for all people. Many people think (following René Descartes) that knowledge requires 100 percent certainty. This implies that if we do not know with absolute certainty, then we are stuck in the mire of skepticism. However, there are things that we can know with confidence even if it is not 100 percent certain. Is the universe expanding? Yes. Do I know this? Yes. Am I 100 percent sure? No - but why think I have to be? There can be degrees of knowledge that include the probable or plausible, the highly likely - not simply certain. And besides, how can a person know with 100 percent certainty that knowledge requires 100 percent certainty? It just is not obvious.

As Christians, we can maintain that our faith does a better job of answering the key questions of life than its alternatives. It is the best explanation and is more plausible than its rivals. Yes, we must listen well to those who take a different view and admit that we do not have all the answers; our understanding needs correcting as we go through life. However, this need not prevent us from pointing out that the Christian faith really does do the best job of addressing where the universe, first life, consciousness, objective moral values, and human rights came from-as well as the key questions about purpose and meaning.

Are we limited and biased? Yes, of course. We should readily acknowledge this. Does this mean we can not have legitimate knowledge? Not at all. We are limited knowers. Those who claim we can not have knowledge presumably know that we can not know!

In the end, we can not deny truth or knowledge or objectivity without affirming them by our denials. For example, to say there is no universal truth is to make a claim that is universally true. Each of us will affirm some kind of metanarrative or grand story to explain how things operate. The real question is: which one does the best job of explaining these things?

3. Communicating our Faith with Postmoderns

a. Communicate authentically and relationally, genuinely living out the truth. Though not perfect, Christians should be real about their struggles. They can also show how their worldview-with Christ's power and a supportive community - can help them grapple with these issues. Os Guinness says the fragmentation in our increasingly postmodern world brings "more moments of truth into people's lives than ever before," affording "enormous opportunities to present the gospel." ⁴

b. Communicate answers wisely, lovingly, and winsomely, keeping in mind underlying personal issues that often present barriers. It is important to give good answers "with gentleness and respect" (1 Pet. 3:15, NIV)-but also wisdom. Behind much of postmodern thought is a flight from God, whose existence has huge implications for how we live. Even atheist philosopher John Searle acknowledges that there is a "much deeper reason for the persistent appeal of all forms of anti-realism" such as relativism and perspectivism: "it satisfies a basic urge to power. It just seems too disgusting, somehow, that we should have to be at the mercy of the 'real world.'" ⁵ We should ask postmoderns if they would like there to be a God or would want Jesus to be God's revelation to us.

c. Live an active, practical faith: Postmoderns want to see an active faith-not the mere possession of theoretical knowledge. We must get back to emphasizing James' theological thrust (a faith that works) to counterbalance an overemphasis on (and misunderstanding of) Paul's doctrine of salvation apart from works. Paul himself brings faith and works together in Eph. 2:8-10; 1 Thess. 1:3; and Titus. 2:11-14: genuine saving faith (through God's grace) produces good works.

¹ Merold Westphal (in William J. Wainwright, ed., God, Philosophy, and Academic Culture (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), p. 25.
² This point is made repeatedly in Steven Best and Douglas Kellner, "Postmodernism," in The Blackwell Guide to Continental Philosophy, eds Robert C. Solomon and David Sherman (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003), pp. 285-308.
³ "Christianity and the Creed of Postmodernism," Christian Scholar's Review 23 (Dec. 1993): p. 123.
⁴ Interview with Os Guinness, et al., "When Foundations Tremble," Leadership (Spring 1993), p. 136.
⁵ John R. Searle, Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World (New York: Basic, 1998), p. 17.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Wrong (and Right) With Postmodernism? - NAMB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In my other essay, "What Is Postmodernism?", I briefly discussed the context for postmodernism's emergence, what it is, and what are its chief characteristics. Here I look at lessons to be learned from postmoderns, problems with much of postmodern thought, and how to communicate our faith more effectively with postmoderns.

# data[].attributes.body
After our debate on Tuesday about Marxism, I decided to look more into just why Communism doesn't work when actually carried out. Along the way, I found this interesting video comparing the atrocities of Nazism with those of Communism, and why one is seen as so much worse than the other. I think this video shows a lot of interesting comparisons about the two ideologies, as well as why we are so ignorant about the one but not the other.

# data[].attributes.body
When I was reading through Sartre's article, I found it hard to understand what exactly he was trying to say Existentialism is. I wanted it explained like I was 10, just so I could understand the concepts he was trying to explain. So, I Googled "Existentialism for Dummies," just like all of those "for Dummies" books. Turns out, it's its own book! One of the links that popped up was a cheat sheet that book brand made, so that's what you'll find attached. It's a brief overview and understanding of what Existentialism is, who major Existentialist philosophers are (and what they did), and what the key concepts of the philosophy are. To me, it's a great, concise way to understand it without getting into quite everything Sartre rambles on about.

P.S. Ignore the picture included with the link, I'm not sure why that's on there. But it is a real website, so it's safe to follow!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Philosophy

2. Existentialism For Dummies Cheat Sheet

From Existentialism For Dummies

By Christopher Panza, Gregory Gale

No doubt you've heard someone speaking of an "existential crisis." What does that really mean, anyway? Existentialists believe that we're born without purpose into a world that makes no sense - but each person has the ability to create his or her own sense of meaning and peace. Discover who invented this relatively new school of philosophy as well as what concepts define existentialism.

Who Are the Existentialists?

Existentialism is a term applied to some late 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who may not have agreed about much, but who all believed that each person must define themselves in an absurd, illogical world. The following are the core figures of existentialist philosophy.

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855): The Danish son of a wealthy merchant, Kierkegaard never held an academic post, but he wrote voluminously. Seen by many as the founder of existentialism, particularly Christian existentialism.

Key contributions: His analysis of religious experience, and the first developed analysis of many key existential concepts, including absurdity, anguish, authenticity, the weight of responsibility you bear for your choices, and the importance of the irrational to human life

Key works: Either/Or (1843), Fear and Trembling (1843), Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846), The Sickness Unto Death (1849)

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): The devout son of a Lutheran minister in Prussia, Nietzsche eventually broke with the church to become one of its staunchest critics and another founding father of existentialism.

Key contributions: Announcing the death of God; changing the human project from that of finding value and meaning to creating value and meaning; returning philosophy to its Greek roots and the concern for the health of the soul

Key works: Human, All too Human (1878-1880), The Gay Science (1882-1887), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1891), Beyond Good and Evil (1886), The Genealogy of Morals (1887), Ecce Homo (1888)

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976): The most thoroughly academic of the existentialists. His involvement with the Nazi party couldn't stop his magnum opus from being one of the most influential books of the 20th century.

Key contributions: Turning existentialism into the systematic study of existence, particularly of Dasein; developing the concepts of being thrown and the situated subject

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980): Heidegger's most celebrated pupil, and the leading French existentialist. Philosopher, novelist, playwright, and political activist, Sartre lived the existential mantra of engagement in the world.

Key contributions: Popularizing existentialism; summarizing the existential perspective in the phrase existence precedes essence; developingexistentialism as a philosophy of freedom

Key works: Nausea (1938), Being and Nothingness (1943), No Exit (1943), Existentialism is a Humanism (1947), Anti-Semite and Jew (1947)

Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986): Seen by some as a mere mouthpiece of Sartre, de Beauvoir was a brilliant thinker in her own right, and she made significant contributions to literature, feminism, and existentialism.

Key contributions: Addressing the problem of other people; the development of a sophisticated existential ethics; grounding much of modern feminism in a largely existential framework

Key works: The Blood of Others (1945), The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), The Second Sex (1949), The Mandarins (1954)

Albert Camus (1913-1960): In many respects, Camus is the conscience of existentialism. A deeply compassionate man, his philosophy was centered on what he considered the universe's greatest injustice - death. Ironically, he died at a relatively young age.

Key contributions: Writing the greatest and most accessible of all existential novels, The Stranger; developing existentialism as a philosophy of absurdity; infusing existential philosophy with compassion and genuine humanity

Key works: The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), The Stranger (1942), The Plague (1947), The Rebel (1951)

Key Existential Concepts

The meaninglessness of life, the absence of God, the loneliness of being a thinking individual - it sounds like the existentialists weren't the happiest group of folks, right? Not necessarily true. Read on to get an idea of what existentialism is all about.

Absurdity: What human beings encounter when they come into contact with the world. Absurdity is brought about because the human instinct to seek order and meaning is frustrated by the refusal of the world to be orderly or meaningful.

Anxiety: Kierkegaard said, "Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom." You feel anxiety because you recognize that you and you alone are responsible for your actions. This produces the two-sided feeling of simultaneous dread and exhilaration.

Alienation: The sense that you're a stranger in the world, or a stranger to yourself. Many aspects of existence can be alienating. One of the primary sources is absurdity. Ironically, the stories and systems developed by philosophy and religion to address that absurdity can be just as alienating.

Existence precedes essence: Sartre's phrase to describe the existential situation humans find themselves in. It refers to the fact that when you're born, you have no meaning, no purpose, no definition. Human beings exist first, and only later define themselves.

The Übermensch: The word Nietzsche uses to refer to his ideal human being. Literally "overman," the word reflects the importance in his philosophy of overcoming - overcoming traditional values, overcoming the herd mentality, and, most importantly, overcoming yourself. You overcome these things so that you might attain something greater. Nietzsche's Übermensch is an unconventional creator of values, a joyous free spirit, and one who embraces the earth instead of pining away for heaven.

The death of God: The death of the notion that belief in God alone, or belief in any religious or philosophical system, is sufficient to provide human beings with the meaning, purpose, and definition they crave. It's the recognition that, because no external system can provide you with the answers, you must take responsibility for providing them yourself.

Subjectivity: Your first-person perspective on the world, including the needs, desires, and emotions that accompany that perspective. The existentialists take this as a valid and important starting point for genuinely human endeavors. This can be contrasted with the scientific mindset, which always starts with objectivity - seeing people in impersonal, objective terms without emotion or appreciation for their individual point of view.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Existentialism For Dummies Cheat Sheet - dummies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No doubt you've heard someone speaking of an "existential crisis." What does that really mean, anyway? Existentialists believe that we're born without purpose into a world that makes no sense - but each person has the ability to create his or her own sense of meaning and peace.

# data[].attributes.body
This week we talked about Freud, especially his views of religion as something created by man to, basically, help us cope with the world we live in. As Christians, we don't believe this. But I was curious to see what non-religious people might believe about the nature of religion, so I searched on YouTube for "ted talks about religion," assuming that would come up with more intellectual arguments and discussions, as opposed to some people just spouting off about whatever they felt like arguing with. That's when I came across this video. In it, Alain de Botton talks about parts of religion that even atheists can agree with. I think this contrasts with Freud, who (in my opinion) seems to say that religion is completely false and simply our defensive mechanism to help us survive. Botton, on the other hand, recognizes the importance of religion both to the individual and the culture. The only links the video has to Freud are the ones I tried to make, but it is at the very least an interesting argument.

# data[].attributes.body
In looking for something to post, I found a lot of really interesting articles, some claiming that Christianity is pro-capitalism and others arguing against, and among them some presented whichever side in a markedly positive and others in a markedly negative light. It is somewhat surprising to me that it is so difficult for people to have an open discussion about it without having to be so one-sided and biased. I looked into cartoons about the topic (which of course are just as one-sided and biased), and that's when I found this one. I think there are multiple ways one could understand this cartoon, but the primary way in which I see it is that we cannot serve two masters. This does not necessarily mean anything for or against capitalism, it simply means that our pursuit is Christ, not money. After the class discussion today, I thought this tied in really well and still left me to contemplate the correlation and connection between Christianity and capitalism.

# data[].attributes.body
A couple weeks ago, we discussed Soren Kierkegaard's "The Present Age," and one of the questions we talked about was whether or not Kierkegaard's "present age" was the same as ours. According to R. H. Lossin at The Brooklyn Rail, it is. In fact, he says, our age is even more so what Kierkegaard was describing than his own age, in part because of the public nature of social media. Lossin makes a couple of interesting points and claims throughout the piece, specifically in terms of art. He takes the ideas presented in "The Present Age" and applies them, or rather reveals their truth, in artists of today. I found it to be an interesting take on Kierkegaard's article, especially in looking specifically, if not solely, at the artist's role in our present age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a matter of fact, nothing I might write could make any difference whatever. It would only be a "book" at the best. If it were a safely dangerous one it would be "scientific" or "political" or "revolutionary." If it were really dangerous it would be "literature" or "religion" or "mysticism" or "art" ... If it were dangerous enough to be of any remote use to the human race it would be merely "frivolous" or "pathological" and that would be the end of that.

James Agee, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men

In 1846 the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote a small pamphlet called The Present Age: On the Death of Rebellion in which he described a social and intellectual landscape much like our own: "A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. Nothing ever happens but there is immediate publicity everywhere." In such an environment, meaning is evacuated; thought and discourse are replaced by "talkativeness"; "everything is reduced to a kind of private-public gossip"; and "real content is...miserably limited because of its intensity and self-absorption." This cultural malady, in its infancy when Kierkegaard described it, has reached maturity with the ascendance of networked technologies that make everything instantly public. Its effects are felt everywhere, but it is particularly problematic for artists, whose work involves a constant negotiation between interior and exterior, between "self-absorption" and expression.

Because art is largely a matter of representation, and because it has recently become even more difficult to separate it from advertising schemes-Richard Prince for Louis Vuitton, Cindy Sherman's "collaboration" with Balenciaga, and Marina Abramovic's limited edition Illy cups-it could be viewed as part of the problem he describes. But if we shift our focus from the end product to its production it becomes very clear that art is, in fact, an action. At its best it is a series of courageous decisions that, while always socially and economically inscribed, are ultimately the result of private notions and individual choices. Choices that are necessarily less individual, less courageous and, dare I say, less genuine when the public, or its agent, publicity, becomes a conscious part of the decision-making process.

Kierkegaard was not making an iconoclastic argument. What is at issue is not representation as such, but the pernicious influence of a desire for relevance, for inclusion in something larger than oneself. This desire is all too human and not necessarily bad. True belief in a higher purpose, whether it is God or social justice, lies behind most of the truly amazing, positive things that humans have managed to accomplish. But where faith and heroic actions make real changes, belief in the false god of "the public" enacts a "leveling process [that] is the victory of abstraction over the individual." Fetishizing the public, as we do everyday through our use of social media, is toxic to creativity-it ensures homogeny by holding individuals to an increasingly rigid, singular standard that only appears to be the reflection of multiple perspectives.

What Kierkegaard is describing-a society where "no one is satisfied with doing something definite, [where] everyone wants to feel flattered by reflection with the illusion of having discovered at the very least a new continent"-is not particular to artists. We are a nation of brunch-Tweeters, convinced that pictures of our cats should be public. But if we accept that art is important, that artists do serve a critical social function, and that this function is critical to the extent that it sets itself against received knowledge and popular discourses, then artists are obligated to acknowledge and resist a larger social tendency to make everything public. Because their particular social role is so intimately bound up in representation, they need to be vigilant on this point.

Artists run a much higher risk of being engulfed by the "monstrous abstraction, [the] all-embracing something which is nothing, [the] mirage" that is the public. And the public-the most common and also most convincing argument for the evisceration of culture-is indeed an abstraction. As Keirkegaard succinctly puts it, "years might be spent gathering the public together, and still it would not be there."

Of course one can argue that if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, it doesn't make a noise, but the increased production, dissemination, and consumption of art does not make for a louder collective thud. This does not mean that we should stop cutting down metaphorical trees, but that we need to accept the fact that it might not make a metaphorical noise. "While a passionate age storms ahead setting up new things and tearing down old, raising and demolishing as it goes, a reflective and passionless age does exactly the contrary: it hinders and stifles all action; it levels."

Kierkegaard was responding to his own time, but his observations are arguably more relevant today. In a social environment that is dominated by the Internet, the expectation of publicity has insinuated itself into nearly all of our actions. "At its maximum," he warns, "the leveling process is a deathly silence in which one can hear one's heart beat, a silence which nothing can pierce, in which everything is engulfed, powerless to resist."

For artists, then, political resistance needs to happen on an individual scale-through a diligent, daily resistance to the seductive promise of recognition and relevance. Artists are not political activists and they are not politicians. And while they might still make decisions about form and content, this no longer distinguishes them from advertisers and publicists, or cocktail-stuffed, attention-whores with paintbrushes. Real artists (yes, I just said that) are "at one with [themselves] instead of being in agreement with a public which destroys everything that is relative, concrete, and particular in life." They are people who make the loudest noise of which they are personally capable, always in full recognition of the fact that it might never be heard.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a matter of fact, nothing I might write could make any difference whatever. It would only be a "book" at the best. If it were a safely dangerous one it would be "scientific" or "political" or "revolutionary." If it were really dangerous it would be "literature" or "religion" or "mysticism" or "art" ...