Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

Unexpected Challenges

Wednesday, January 15th, 2014

by Kristin

I never knew when I first had children just how much they would challenge my skill and wit as a philosopher.

Patrick especially seems to be gifted in testing the limits.

At the breakfast table….

Me: “I need to go shopping today.”

Patrick:  “Can me and Patrick go with you?”

Me: ? ? ? ?

**********************************

Another day in the boys’ bedroom…

Patrick: “I want the nightlight on.”

Ryan: “But it’s daytime.”

Patrick: “No, it’s nighttime.”

Ryan: “No, look out the window.” *Holds up Patrick to window* “See? The sun is shining. It’s daytime.”

Patrick: “No, it’s not. It’s nighttime.”

*Long pause*

Patrick: *With a laugh* “Oh, it’s daytime.”

*****************************

And today, Justin posed this question at breakfast…

Justin: “Mommy, can I have hemlock milk on my granola?”

Me: *amused smile* “It’s called hemp milk. Hemlock milk would be poison.”

Justin: “Oh, okay. Can I have hemplock milk?”

Keep trying, Socrates.

 

Worldviews in “Collision”

Sunday, December 6th, 2009

by Kristin

Recently, we viewed the new “debatumentary” about Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson’s tour around America. The two men debated the existence and goodness of God. Hitchens’ primary argument was that Christianity is “immoral”, and Wilson (craftily wielding the transcendental argument) challenged him to give a basis for his claim.

In my observation, Hitchens had difficulty in recognizing the paralyzing thrust of Wilson’s argument. An atheist can’t deny the existence of a Moral Lawgiver and an absolute moral law and then turn around and claim that the Christian’s belief in such goes against absolute moral law.

Let me explain using an illustration. Suppose Hitchens came up to me and told me that  Parliament doesn’t exist, that there are no lawmakers, judges, or policemen, and there is no Charter or Constitution — no law or enforcement of any kind.

“Is that so?” I said. “Well, I believe that all drivers should stop at red lights and stop signs.”

“It’s against the law to believe such a thing,” says Hitchens. “People like you are criminals and are poisoning the world.”

But hold on a second: Against what law? Hitchens just told me he doesn’t believe there are laws, lawmakers, or law enforcers. So what is he referring to? If there is no law, then on what is he basing his claim that my belief is “against the law”?  The answer is: Nothing. He has nothing to back him up. Hitchens’ claim is empty and meaningless.

The same goes with his argument against Christianity. He denies the existence of God (the Great Lawgiver and Judge) and by consequence the existence of God’s absolute moral law, and then he calls Christianity “immoral.” What does he have to back up that claim? Nothing. His argument is totally meaningless unless he can come up with an absolute moral law (other than God’s) which applies to all men equally across all cultures and history.

I think Wilson did an excellent job of keeping up the offensive and forcing Hitchens to defend his position. Wilson kept driving the point home that Hitchens had no ground to stand on, and hopefully — Lord willing — Hitchens will eventually come to see the fatal flaw in his atheism.

A Married Philosopher

Monday, November 3rd, 2008

While Ryan and I continue to disagree with Nietzsche regarding philosophers shunning marriage (see earlier post), it should be noted that a comment has already been made as to how our interaction as a married couple sometimes resembles a sitcom or comedy… ;)

Can intelligence find itself?

Friday, February 15th, 2008

It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
- Bertrand Russell

Nietzsche on Marriage

Wednesday, April 11th, 2007

Thus, the philosopher dislikes marriage as well as what might persuade him into it—marriage is a barrier and a disaster along his route to the optimal. What great philosopher up to now has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leitniz, Kant, Schopenhauer—none of these got married. What’s more, we cannot even imagine them married. A married philosopher belongs in a comedy, that’s my principle. And Socrates, the exception, the malicious Socrates, it appears, got married ironically to demonstrate this very principle. -Nietzsche

We think he’s wrong. Only rebellious, anti-Christian philosophers shun marriage on principle. We embrace marriage, the pursuit of true wisdom (philosophy), and all other blessings from our good Creator.

Monument to German stupidity

Wednesday, April 11th, 2007

by Ryan

I have found a quote which vindicates my early suppositions regarding Fichte and Hegel: Will Durant in The Story of Philosophy comments, quoting Schopenhauer: “Fichte and Schelling took Kant and excogitated magnificent spider-webs of metaphysics. ‘But the height of the audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had previously been known only in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most bare-faced general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, and will remain as a monument to German stupidity.’”