Wednesday marked the end of a week-long break from classes, a break of which I took full advantage.
At some point (I forget exactly when), those who frequent the Student Discussion Forum on ANGEL held elections, and I was elected Chief Bard and Composer of Odes, Dirges, and the Like; Professor of Theological Studies; and Chief of Grammar Police. Our dear friend Ashton was elected President and Lord of the Realm (and many congratulations to the Gaffer!). My duties have been chiefly exercised in the Poetic and Grammar departments, and I may later share some of the Odes, Dirges and the Like which I have composed in my short time in office, if there is any interest.
Last Friday, I composed a new poem, which is now up on my poetry blog. In the evening, we had the Greenhouse homeschool group over to our house for the study we are having on The Squire and the Scroll and The Princess and the Kiss (separated by gender, naturally); this was something of a special night-time session, however, with the dads. We boys started a campfire in the fire ring, around which the dads led the study on purity and ways to maintain purity and encourage others in it. It was quite a good study, and the book is a "children's fairy tale" with all the deep meaning of the old fairy tales (and perhaps more).
After the ladies and we boys had finished our respective studies, the children and dads played a game of flashlight tag in our yard. That was, quite simply, a blast, even if the full moon made it more difficult for the runners. Some folks came up with some creative hiding places, too.
On Sunday, I had to drive my younger brother up to church early because he was in the Easter play; knowing that we had to get up early anyway, we decided to rise at 0600 in order to have a couple games of Airsoft before dressing. This was, of course, to get the blood moving, and I'm certain that we were the most wide-awake of the Easter play participants. The program itself was rather interesting--definitely non-traditional.
On Monday, my younger brother and I added yet another weapon to our family's arsenal: a potato cannon. Actually, this one replaced the other, whose barrel I had accidentally broken after a failed attempt to remove the cap of the firing chamber. But anyway, we spent Monday afternoon firing that off and experimenting with different propellant amounts and different ammunition. We discovered that corn kernels make a good shotgun effect, and that using a 10-second squirt of aerosol hairspray makes a substantially longer shot than the standard 5 seconds. When we get pictures, I shall share those.
On Tuesday, I spent the morning playing Legos with my youngest brother, and I ended up building a square-rigged sailing ship for my Lego sailors and Marines. I took a few pictures, which you can find here. We were invited that evening to a birthday celebration with some good homeschooling friends, and we had a most enjoyable time with them, as well, discussing many things and eating much ice cream cake.
For the last day of spring break, I drove up to meet another Nebraskan DLer who lives north of Omaha. His dad is a Lutheran pastor/missionary, so he showed me around their outreach, which was quite remarkable--God is doing great things from small beginnings. He also showed me some of the distinctives of the Lutheran liturgy, and we had a good time comparing notes on his Lutheran theology and my more Calvinistic theology. There are some differences (especially in our view of the sacraments), but the similarities, at least for their LCMS denomination, are similar enough that we can make common cause against many of the errors in modern evangelicalism.
In the afternoon, we drove down to the Missouri River, shooting cans with BB guns and skipping rocks, and afterwards took a 2-hour tramp through the woods in search of a scenic overlook. We never did find the overlook, but the hike itself was great fun, and the chance to talk with another PHC student was unforgettable.
I also did some more reading in Martin Chuzzlewit, and am working on John Passmore's The Perfectibility of Man, an analysis of different perfectionist movements, Christian and secular. It looks interesting so far.
In my music, I continued to practice trumpet and guitar, and wrote a new tune, originally for trumpet and piano, but I've also played it on guitar. Actually, I think it would sound good with a wide combination of instruments, especially strings, as it definitely has roots in the Celtic/Appalachian musical tradition. When I can play it well enough to record it, I shall share for those who are interested.
I've started learning Pachelbel's Canon in D major for guitar. The recording of that piece with which I am most familiar is in fact a guitar duet--I have yet to find an orchestral recording which I like as much as the guitar arrangement on which I've been raised. It is a beautiful piece, but performed on classical guitar--I cannot find the words at the moment to describe its elegance. Even the one I have on my Songspot does not compare. My mother likes it as well, and has told me from the time I started playing guitar that I'll be playing it at my sisters' weddings...so I figured that now is as good a time as any to learn it.
I have a couple ideas for future posts, mostly stemming from conversations I've had recently, and I'm willing to take input on what my next post should cover.
--Our family's springtime operation of making maple syrup.
--For those few who don't know: My view precisely of the extent of the will's freedom, and of its relation to God's providence (I'd try to keep it short, but no guarantees).
--The fine line a soldier (and especially a Christian who goes to war) must walk in performing his duty but not becoming calloused and hateful toward his enemies.
--The crucial difference between the conditional salvation of modern "evangelicalism" and the unconditional election preached as the "evangel" by the Reformers and how it affects our view of grace, salvation, and assurance.
--The theological lessons of an excellent board game: the strategy game RISK (since I have a game scheduled for tomorrow, I'm probably going to end up writing this one anyway. Ha!)
--Is art subjective or objective? (again, I'll try to keep this short, but no guarantees)
--Thoughts on cultural (not necessarily political) traditionalism/conservatism v. progressivism/libertarianism/liberalism, as exemplified in Fiddler on the Roof.
--Why I love my car.
:-D
Suggestions welcome.
But for now...back to conquering paper dragons and exam-trolls.
Sola Gratia,
Colin
27 March 2008
Yet another US History post
It is odd that most of my philosophical discussions this semester are coming from a history class--I guess that is what I get for having already taken such foundational courses as Constitutional Law, Theology, Principles of Biblical Reasoning, and Philosophy and being left with Geometry, Rhetoric, Freedom's Foundations, and US History. I'll just say that I can't wait to start my major courses...
In the meantime, here is a conversation from US History, stemming originally from a discussion on the difference in American sentiment between World War II and our own day. The first section was written by one of my classmates (reprinted by his permission), and my response is two-fold.
"I think we're realizing that zeitgeist has a lot to do with the public response to government action (it may well be the biggest factor). The general feeling of the 40s was "we just conquered depression and we're damned proud of that," while today's seems to be a more whiny version of "this is hard and I don't like it."
We are what our parents were to our grandparents - rebellious wimps in need of a spanking and some chores. I don't want to rant (since that's so callow), but it seems that our generation of men needs a dose of warrior instinct (in the Fight Club and 300 vein) to combat lethargy and weak wills, while our generation of women needs a dose of motherly responsibility (in the Clara Barton and WWII Women vein) to combat neglect and this idea of an absolute right to total independence."
"Perhaps this is reopening a can of worms that was sufficiently aired last semester (though it doesn't have to be such a reopening), but I wish to point out that the "empowerment" of women and the effeminization of men go hand in hand. Unfortunately, as women are willing to take charge (or demand the reins [in the case of the suffragette movement), men are often all too willing to cede it, especially if they don't see any good reason to hold it themselves (this would be the case when they don't see the Scriptural command for them to be the head of their households and in church leadership, etc.). It could be debated which comes first, though that's not my object: they are definitely complementary. The more important issue is which needs to be changed first, as men simply asserting their authority/responsibility over unwilling women isn't going to get far (I believe I remember the slogan "forced submission isn't truly submission," and I agree to a point).
The other option is women dropping their power where it is the man's responsibility and leaving it to the men to step up. I'd question the practical wisdom of this initially, but it actually makes sense if one considers the point that if women aren't to have responsibility in a given area (and I'm not talking specifics right now), then it is not incumbent on them to hold up that area of responsibility. If something falls through because the men didn't stand up in their area of responsibility, it is their fault and responsibility--not the women's. Perhaps the women could show a bit more trust in God's providence in our respective spheres of responsibility--and perhaps a bit more trust that some, at least, of the men WILL step up. Just a thought.
In any case, I suppose I have quite enough to worry about as a man needing to take on my own responsibility.
Anyway, I was pondering what has caused the shift, and one cause at least is ironic. The public schools are rife with the idea of self-reliance and self-esteem and "believe in yourself." For that matter, some of the churches are (Joel Osteen, anyone?). But my suspicion is that these people are looking at themselves and suddenly find that they ARE weak. For all the individualistic propaganda, they find that the individual IS weak.
To an extent, the Great Generation and the generations before were also independent and self-reliant (like the pioneer stock they were), but they were not individualistic, and their independence was in a large way centered around others, if that makes sense. In other words, they had an "I can do this" attitude, because they were fighting for a principle higher than themselves and received strength to achieve their goals.
All that the contemporary individualist has to fight for is himself--and is it worth it?"
In the meantime, here is a conversation from US History, stemming originally from a discussion on the difference in American sentiment between World War II and our own day. The first section was written by one of my classmates (reprinted by his permission), and my response is two-fold.
"I think we're realizing that zeitgeist has a lot to do with the public response to government action (it may well be the biggest factor). The general feeling of the 40s was "we just conquered depression and we're damned proud of that," while today's seems to be a more whiny version of "this is hard and I don't like it."
We are what our parents were to our grandparents - rebellious wimps in need of a spanking and some chores. I don't want to rant (since that's so callow), but it seems that our generation of men needs a dose of warrior instinct (in the Fight Club and 300 vein) to combat lethargy and weak wills, while our generation of women needs a dose of motherly responsibility (in the Clara Barton and WWII Women vein) to combat neglect and this idea of an absolute right to total independence."
"Perhaps this is reopening a can of worms that was sufficiently aired last semester (though it doesn't have to be such a reopening), but I wish to point out that the "empowerment" of women and the effeminization of men go hand in hand. Unfortunately, as women are willing to take charge (or demand the reins [in the case of the suffragette movement), men are often all too willing to cede it, especially if they don't see any good reason to hold it themselves (this would be the case when they don't see the Scriptural command for them to be the head of their households and in church leadership, etc.). It could be debated which comes first, though that's not my object: they are definitely complementary. The more important issue is which needs to be changed first, as men simply asserting their authority/responsibility over unwilling women isn't going to get far (I believe I remember the slogan "forced submission isn't truly submission," and I agree to a point).
The other option is women dropping their power where it is the man's responsibility and leaving it to the men to step up. I'd question the practical wisdom of this initially, but it actually makes sense if one considers the point that if women aren't to have responsibility in a given area (and I'm not talking specifics right now), then it is not incumbent on them to hold up that area of responsibility. If something falls through because the men didn't stand up in their area of responsibility, it is their fault and responsibility--not the women's. Perhaps the women could show a bit more trust in God's providence in our respective spheres of responsibility--and perhaps a bit more trust that some, at least, of the men WILL step up. Just a thought.
In any case, I suppose I have quite enough to worry about as a man needing to take on my own responsibility.
Anyway, I was pondering what has caused the shift, and one cause at least is ironic. The public schools are rife with the idea of self-reliance and self-esteem and "believe in yourself." For that matter, some of the churches are (Joel Osteen, anyone?). But my suspicion is that these people are looking at themselves and suddenly find that they ARE weak. For all the individualistic propaganda, they find that the individual IS weak.
To an extent, the Great Generation and the generations before were also independent and self-reliant (like the pioneer stock they were), but they were not individualistic, and their independence was in a large way centered around others, if that makes sense. In other words, they had an "I can do this" attitude, because they were fighting for a principle higher than themselves and received strength to achieve their goals.
All that the contemporary individualist has to fight for is himself--and is it worth it?"
13 March 2008
What we accomplish in DL
A "Campfire" story, with contributions from many of our Distance Learners, posted to our Student Discussion Forum (SDF). Enjoy!
06 March 2008
And hello there...
For those who were rejoicing in my absence, my reduction in online presence is due to a tragedy striking my laptop's hard drive, which has gone to meet the great motherboard in the sky. I don't have as much time on my parents' desktop, so I've not been on here; I'm just updating right now to let you know that, yes, indeed I'm alive. Not much is new here, except that we've finished Dad's blacksmithing shed behind our garage, and we fired up the forge last Saturday and hammered away at some old railroad spikes. We have also tapped 12 of our maple trees for syrup, and the first batch is on the stove. Once we have some pictures of the whole process, I'll put some up!
I filled out this survey, too. Mayhap I ought to post my "Mother of all surveys" survey sometime (My DL friends and Michael K. should remember that one), just to get all possibilities for future survey questions out of the way. Ha!
Finally, in Freedom's Foundations, we are discussing the Constitution and the Federalist Papers; one of my classmates took the optimistic view that Americans are more educated than any other people in history, so are well equipped to make good political decisions--in short, we ought to be thankful and not be too worried about America. That prompted this essay, with which I shall leave you for now:
The Insufficiency of a Godless Education
By Colin Cutler
"Now what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, Sir!"
So opens Charles Dickens's Hard Times, with the schoolmaster being impressed--willingly--with the importance of "Facts." The novel is a bitter invective against this idea that "facts alone are wanted," and I would concur in Dickens's indictment.
It is said that the modern American is more educated, on average, than nearly anyone else in history. I disagree. I concede that more facts are being presented to more people in America than in most other countries at any given time in history. I disagree, however, because a debatable and insufficient definition of education is being used. First of all, education based solely on facts (as our public school system, by and large, is) neglects the personal aspect of humans; it reduces them to "reasoning animals." Ultimately, it can only teach them what has happened before them, not what they ought to do--and thus deprives them of direction for their reason.
More specifically, however, the emphasis of "education" upon facts is empty if one cannot understand those facts. Cornelius Van Til spoke of materialism as a system of uninterpreted facts--"brute facts," in his phrase--which, precisely because they simply existed without interpretation, could not be interpreted unless the materialist was willing to take a "leap of faith" in projecting a subjective interpretation of the fact. This would, of course, be a denial of everything materialism stands for. In other words, facts may be, but they have no meaning. And it is at this very point that materialism fails--and with it, the typical model of "education," which is indubitably founded on materialism.
A short digression: though the non-materialistic New Ageism has made some inroads in public schooling, as well, it is not the foundation of it. Further, I would agree with one of my professors in saying that the rebellion against God takes the form of a Janus face of rationalism/irrationalism. They are two sides of the same coin and, whether the proponents of each side realize it or not, are indispensable to each other. I make this point to qualify my identification of public schooling with strict materialism, but there is another point here that I will revisit below.
Yes, the children of America are taught facts. But are they taught how to analyze those facts and discover what they mean? Many high school students have read Shakespeare, but how many could tell the significance of Shakespeare's work and why it is relevant to us? You and I can see a statement of the human condition and the universe in Shakespeare's tragedies--as well as Shakespeare taking a shot at explaining why things are as they are--but how many students are taught anything more than "Shakespeare was a great author and you need to read 'Julius Caesar' for English so that you can see what great writing looks like"? Then they are lost because they can not see what is so great about Elizabethan language. They are told to define a "theme," "plot," and "tone," and can probably tell one what they think the theme, plot, and tone of a given story are, but how many can analyze that theme and tone in light of what it ultimately means and whether or not it is an accurate summation of reality?
It is analyzation that America's "education" fails to teach, and precisely analyzation that materialism implicitly forbids, if taken to its ultimate conclusion. The teachers are then reduced to asking the students what they think of the works and what it means to them. Here we see the irrationalist side of rebellion. Though few take it as far as Derrida's Deconstructionism, the emphasis is on subjective interpretation, with little or no regard for the objective Facts of who the author was, his historical context, his religious beliefs, etc.
Further, we as Christians are to see the Facts in their historical context as a part of God's plan of history. A Divine "plan of history" is, of course, wholly discarded by materialists; there are fatalists, naturally, but their sense of destiny is deterministic, not based in a Divine Providence. We must be careful that we also do not divorce the facts of history from their meaning as a part of God's plan for His universe. Frankly, if a person is not taught God's interpretation and purpose in history (and thus the meaning of the facts of history), he is not educated. If a person is taught in a materialistic mold, not only is God excluded, but he has no way of making any sense of the facts. He has no purpose, and facts--his "education"--will do him little good in such a state.
I filled out this survey, too. Mayhap I ought to post my "Mother of all surveys" survey sometime (My DL friends and Michael K. should remember that one), just to get all possibilities for future survey questions out of the way. Ha!
Finally, in Freedom's Foundations, we are discussing the Constitution and the Federalist Papers; one of my classmates took the optimistic view that Americans are more educated than any other people in history, so are well equipped to make good political decisions--in short, we ought to be thankful and not be too worried about America. That prompted this essay, with which I shall leave you for now:
The Insufficiency of a Godless Education
By Colin Cutler
"Now what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, Sir!"
So opens Charles Dickens's Hard Times, with the schoolmaster being impressed--willingly--with the importance of "Facts." The novel is a bitter invective against this idea that "facts alone are wanted," and I would concur in Dickens's indictment.
It is said that the modern American is more educated, on average, than nearly anyone else in history. I disagree. I concede that more facts are being presented to more people in America than in most other countries at any given time in history. I disagree, however, because a debatable and insufficient definition of education is being used. First of all, education based solely on facts (as our public school system, by and large, is) neglects the personal aspect of humans; it reduces them to "reasoning animals." Ultimately, it can only teach them what has happened before them, not what they ought to do--and thus deprives them of direction for their reason.
More specifically, however, the emphasis of "education" upon facts is empty if one cannot understand those facts. Cornelius Van Til spoke of materialism as a system of uninterpreted facts--"brute facts," in his phrase--which, precisely because they simply existed without interpretation, could not be interpreted unless the materialist was willing to take a "leap of faith" in projecting a subjective interpretation of the fact. This would, of course, be a denial of everything materialism stands for. In other words, facts may be, but they have no meaning. And it is at this very point that materialism fails--and with it, the typical model of "education," which is indubitably founded on materialism.
A short digression: though the non-materialistic New Ageism has made some inroads in public schooling, as well, it is not the foundation of it. Further, I would agree with one of my professors in saying that the rebellion against God takes the form of a Janus face of rationalism/irrationalism. They are two sides of the same coin and, whether the proponents of each side realize it or not, are indispensable to each other. I make this point to qualify my identification of public schooling with strict materialism, but there is another point here that I will revisit below.
Yes, the children of America are taught facts. But are they taught how to analyze those facts and discover what they mean? Many high school students have read Shakespeare, but how many could tell the significance of Shakespeare's work and why it is relevant to us? You and I can see a statement of the human condition and the universe in Shakespeare's tragedies--as well as Shakespeare taking a shot at explaining why things are as they are--but how many students are taught anything more than "Shakespeare was a great author and you need to read 'Julius Caesar' for English so that you can see what great writing looks like"? Then they are lost because they can not see what is so great about Elizabethan language. They are told to define a "theme," "plot," and "tone," and can probably tell one what they think the theme, plot, and tone of a given story are, but how many can analyze that theme and tone in light of what it ultimately means and whether or not it is an accurate summation of reality?
It is analyzation that America's "education" fails to teach, and precisely analyzation that materialism implicitly forbids, if taken to its ultimate conclusion. The teachers are then reduced to asking the students what they think of the works and what it means to them. Here we see the irrationalist side of rebellion. Though few take it as far as Derrida's Deconstructionism, the emphasis is on subjective interpretation, with little or no regard for the objective Facts of who the author was, his historical context, his religious beliefs, etc.
Further, we as Christians are to see the Facts in their historical context as a part of God's plan of history. A Divine "plan of history" is, of course, wholly discarded by materialists; there are fatalists, naturally, but their sense of destiny is deterministic, not based in a Divine Providence. We must be careful that we also do not divorce the facts of history from their meaning as a part of God's plan for His universe. Frankly, if a person is not taught God's interpretation and purpose in history (and thus the meaning of the facts of history), he is not educated. If a person is taught in a materialistic mold, not only is God excluded, but he has no way of making any sense of the facts. He has no purpose, and facts--his "education"--will do him little good in such a state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
