I would like to first start off by recognizing that the questions you have brought up on the existence of God are more academic in nature than personal. I have found that when approaching this type of question, value and prudence are found in addressing each individual appropriately. If you had, let’s say, approached this discussion asking about some specific pain or disappointment you had experienced in your life, our discussion may have gone in a different direction. In your questions on the existence of God, in light of human pain and suffering, you have taken an academic approach, and therefore I shall answer you (somewhat) academically.
Before we get into our discussion in more depth, let us lay some groundwork. As we work through this problem of evil, let us first address the concept of paradox. Sometimes, there are expressions of an idea that seem intuitively to be contradictory. A paradox often encompasses concepts, that seem prima fascie self-refuting. Let me provide a few illustrations.
Have you ever heard the saying “spreading yourself thin”? The idea is that if you are a jack of all trades, then you are a master of none. In this case, it is easy to understand the epitome of “less is more”. Less knowledge in the broader sense can provide the ability to have more knowledge in the particular sense. The statement – “less is more”, while seeming at first glance to be self-refuting and contradictory, can also be understood in the right relationship and in the right way.
There are also scenarios in life where you may need to be cruel to someone to be kind to them. This once again, seems at first glance to be self-contradictory, and yet, perhaps if someone says to you, “do I look fat in this outfit”, you could say “no” and subject them to the ridicule of their peers, or you could say “yes, it is not very flattering”. In the second case, you may be cruel, but you were cruel only to be kind.
In both of these above cases, we have seen scenarios where language provides a paradox, and yet, given the right relationship and understanding, we can, in some ways, provide satisfactory resolution to what is seemingly a self-refuting incoherent paradox of ideas.
Now it is by no means a hard stretch to reason, that if humans can take hold of paradoxical positions, then a God who is greater, can also maintain positions of paradox as well. This concept is also necessary when we seek understanding of God in light of the question of evil.
And so, it seems most appropriate to discuss your views on the non-existence of God with the most fundamental of all objections to God – the paradox of evil. Our God is understood to be omniscient (all knowing), omni-benevolent (all loving) and omnipotent (all powerful). And here, we find that an all loving, all powerful and all knowing God still allows evil (and by inference pain and suffering and sin) to persist. So, at first glance, one might immediately jump to the conclusion that this God, as described, does not exist. However, such a conclusion is not necessary.
I shall begin with an illustration.
Once there was a young princess, who while ugly, seemed to have a heart of gold, her name was Orual. Orual was sister kin to a princess that seemed simple, and yet, was the most beautiful and unselfish woman the world had ever laid eyes on, she was called Psyche.
Through a series of unfortunate events Psyche was offered (offered herself) up as a sacrifice to appease the gods and to divert a pestilence and famine that had fallen upon their home kingdom of Glome. After the sacrifice commenced, Orual, assured that Psyche had not really been killed, searched for her, and found her sitting in a castle that could not be seen by human eyes, eating food that could not be tasted by mortal tongue and married to a god who refused to show his face.
Insisting that the beautiful girl had cracked under the strain of her ordeal, Orual entreated her to expose her god-husband, by disobeying him and looking upon his face directly, for she was sure that this would open the eyes of Psyche so she could see that her husband was not a god, but a mere rouge that had enticed her into believing in a false and make believe world, and was holding her against her will in an impoverished, retched state.
Partly because of her love for Orual, and more because of Orual’s vain insistence, Psyche obeyed, exposed her husband’s face, and was banished from the kingdom and her immortal husband, to roam and walk the earth.
In great distress Orual began writing a book; her charge against the gods. She wrote accusing them of injustice, vileness, indifference, she accused them of hiding themselves, and then punishing her for her unbelief, she claimed them to be unloving and unkind, and in her distress she blamed the gods for her very unbelief.
The book ends with Orual being brought before the gods to give her account of how they were unjust, unloving, uncaring and unworthy of love and adoration. In the end Orual finds her answer to her charges, and she understands that we cannot meet with the gods face to face, till we have faces.
This illustration is a very short rendition of a magnificent book called Till We Have Faces written by C.S. Lewis. I would highly recommend reading this book, as it draws out for recognition a fundamental question of the differences between what we, as humans claim to know, and what we, as humans really do know.
This story is similar to the story we find in the Jewish book of Job. In this book, we find God allowing pain and suffering and evil to happen to this blameless and upright man by the name of Job. As readers, we have a somewhat omniscient view of what is going on, because we get to read Job chapter one and two – but Job doesn’t – he has no idea of why all these trials and pains beset him. What is interesting, in the very end, when Job confronts God, the only answer God gives Job is, Himself. And Job, a man who lost all his earthly possessions, sons and daughters and servants, accepts this answer, for he realizes that he is faceless before the power of The Almighty God.
Now, so far, I have used parables to discuss how God is far beyond reproach and questioning, and yet, you may, at this point, believe that this line of reasoning is invalid. For, you may say, I still haven’t answered your question as to why He allows pain and suffering and evil, but have only side stepped it by saying “God is God”. This approach might be compared to a kind of talking head like the Wizard of Oz in saying “Do not question the great and powerful Oz”. For those that believe in the Wizard, the argument is convincing, but for those who do not believe, much more is required.
Very well then, I think, to answer your question from an academic perspective, I might first need to discuss the nature of evil. What is evil? How does one define evil? Close your eyes and think up a definition of evil.
Many philosophers define evil as the lack of good. They say evil has no positive nature, but evil is a measurement of the absence of good (referred to in philosophical terms as the privation of good). Things that are considered to be not evil are measured on an approximation of goodness and perfection.
This is exactly what Thomas Aquinas does in his 4th cosmological argument. His argument is that the idea of “more perfect” and “less perfect” is defined as an approximate to the standard, and that standard must be that which is all perfection, and that which is all perfections is by definition God (see Anselm’s Ontological Argument). Evil is therefore the absolute lack of perfection, it is defined as that which lacks all perfections. The reason we can even attribute something as evil, or less than perfect, is because we have the perfect being to approximate our standard too. Therefore, the knowledge of evil proves the existence of God.
C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity goes even further to define what he refers to as the moral law that governs what is right or wrong. Lewis states that when two people disagree on what is right and wrong (and the existence of this type of disagreement is an undeniable truth), then they are both implicitly appealing to a standard that is outside of themselves, a concept of what is morally right and morally wrong. Again, this measurement is known by what is considered to be “more right” and “less right” as it approximates the ultimate standard of rightness (or perfection). God is defined as that which has all perfections. Therefore, the fact that people argue over right and wrong, proves the existence of God.
At this point, I have given you reasons to show why the existence of evil is yet another proof for the existence of God, so let me get down to business and answer your question without skirting it any longer.
The existence of evil is a paradox when it comes to the existence of an all powerful, all loving God. It is one that I cannot truly answer you, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But what I can say, I will. When we look at our own lives, there are many things when approximating to a standard of what is good, would be defined as bad. There are things that we see happen that we consider evil: a child dying in childhood, a mother or father dying and leaving their children to grow up without a parent or parents, disfigurements, unfairness and injustice happening everywhere in the world around us, and the list goes on and on. Do I have an answer for all of these things? No. Do I have an answer for even some of these things? Probably not.
And yet, when I look at my own life, and I see the evils, the hardships, the suffering, there are many things that I can now stand up and say “I see the good that has come from this”. It may not be that I will always see the good; it may not be that there will always be a good to be seen by our own eyes, and yet, just as with a paradox (even if it is one that we cannot understand in the right relationship, in the right way), the evils we see in and around us cannot, through logic, or probability describe away the existence of an Omnipotent, Omni-Benevolent, Omniscient God. His existence in light of the existence of evil is not a contradiction, but rather a paradox that we do not have the right faculties to understand.
I wish I could continue, as I have just scratched the surface, and there is so much more that I would love to discuss, on each and every one of your points; but, to take the words for John, I suppose if the whole world were a scroll and the oceans ink, I still could not capture the complexity and importance of this discussion.
Perhaps, some day, when we have faces, we will be able to understand.
Category: school
I am sick with a headache – but not because of this…
Faith versus Reason
A discourse on St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm of Canterbury
Jediah L.
PHI1000
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The two names, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm of Canterbury carry great weight in both the world of religion and philosophy. In this introduction to philosophy course, we have been asked to compare and contrast the Ontological argument of Anselm to the arguments of cosmology from St. Thomas Aquinas. While we can find cosmological arguments in works of Anselm (like those put forth in the Monologion), and we can find ontological arguments by Aquinas (like some of the divine traits put forth in the quinquae viae), the intent of this assignment is not to limit either philosopher to a specific set of arguments, rather to compare and contrast these identified arguments for the existence of God. As a result, in this paper, we will focus specifically on the differences of the ontological versus cosmological arguments of the two aforementioned philosophers. Our primary focus will be to show how each proof presents a priori or a posteriori arguments for God’s existence, as well as compare and contrast the way of faith and reason shown by the differing methods of these two arguments.
We turn our view first to St. Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm, in his ontological argument, argues first and foremost of the a priori nature of God, that is, that the existence of God is necessary and self-evident. His philosophical proof can be defined in its essence as thus:
1. God by definition is that which no greater can be conceived
2. That which is outside of the mind is greater than that which is only inside of the mind (for existence is greater than non-existence).
3. If God existed only inside of the mind, than one could conceive of a God greater than God
4. Therefore: God exists (outside of the mind)
In the Proslogium Anselm lays out this argument, and asserts that even the fool can be convinced that there is in understanding, that which no greater can be conceived. His proof continues to dictate that while the fool might state, that which no greater can be conceived only exists in understanding, it by necessity must also exist in reality, for if it is conceived in understanding alone, it can also be conceived to exist in reality (which is greater), and by definition that which no greater can be conceived is that which no greater can be conceived..:namespace prefix = w ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word” />
One of the primary points to notice of Anselm’s argument is that it defines the existence of God as a necessary and analytical truth and then builds rational arguments upon that. This thought process can be seen in Anselm through one of his famous phrases: Credo ut Intellegam. This phrase acts in summation of the idea that we first have faith in what necessarily has to exist by definition, and through this faith we seek the rationale (understanding) of this faith (faith comes before reason).
The arguments by St. Thomas Aquinas, however, take a different approach to proving God. Aquinas uses a posteriori reasoning; that is, he seeks to prove God by contingent and synthetic truths through particular experiences and justifications. Of the five proofs, the two that are given the most attention in our assigned readings are the arguments of first cause and arguments of contingency.
The first cause argument goes something like this
1. There exists things that are caused
2. Nothing can cause itself
3. An infinite number of causes cannot be regressed
4. Therefore there exists an uncaused first cause
5. This uncaused first cause is God
This argument is based on an understanding of ex nihilo nihil fit, which is to say, out of nothing, nothing comes. The idea behind this understanding is that in order for something to create itself (to cause itself), it must predate itself, and therefore it must exist and not-exist at the same time, which is not logically or casually possible and violates the law of non-contradiction put forth by Aristotle. Secondly, premise three can be furthered through a thought experiment proposed by David Hilbert, referred to as Hilbert’s hotel. This experiment shows the absurdity of trying to traverse an actual infinite, and draws a differentiation between an actual infinite and a potential infinite, the later being an indefinite collection. In this thought experiment, Hilbert’s hotel has an infinite number of rooms, but an infinite number of guests as well (therefore the hotel is full). Hilbert shows that you can still add an infinite number of hotel guests (even though the hotel is already full), and yet have no more guests then before you added the infinite number of guests. His conclusion is that the hotel has a potential infinite (an indefinite collection) rather than an actual infinite
The contingent argument goes something like this
1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary
2. Not every being can be contingent
3. Therefore there exists a necessary being upon which the contingent beings depend.
4. A necessary being on which all contingent beings exist is what we mean by “God”
5. Therefore God exists
This argument is also similar to the first cause argument, in that it describes the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit, that is, before contingent beings come to exist, there must be something non-contingent (therefore necessarily existing) to predate those things that are contingent, because contingent things cannot create themselves, and are contingent in reference to something outside of themselves.
As can be seen in these cosmological proofs, Aquinas, unlike Anselm’s ontological argument, takes the approach that we can come to faith in the existence of God, first by reasoning through our experiences and through rational justifications.
In summary, both Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm agree in the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolant, omniscient God, the God of the Christian Bible, however, they approach the subject within these discussed proofs quite differently. Aquinas uses a posteriori reasoning based on contingent and synthetic truths defined through particular experiences and justifications, his idea is that logic and reason will bring us to the knowledge of the existence of God. Anselm, on the other hand, uses a priori reasoning based on necessary and analytical truths, his premise is that we start our search for God with faith in what is necessarily true, and use that faith to bring rationale to our understanding.
Bibliography
Frame, J. M. (n.d.). Van Til, Cornelius (1895-1987). Retrieved January 27, 2008, from The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Vantil.htm
Nolan, L. (2006, October 18). Decartes’ Ontological Argument. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/
Pojman, L. P. (2006). Philosophy : The pursuit of wisdom. Belmont: Holly J. Allen.
Pojman, L. P. (2006). Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. New York: Oxford University Press.
Second portion of our assignment is to use the Hypothetical syllogism pattern to show how Descartes’ ontological argument can be expressed. Taking Descartes’ ontological argument by way of a quote from the Fifth mediation
1. If I can clearly and distinctly relate a property to an object then I must have some foundation to understand the property of the object
2. If I have a foundation to understand the property of an object then the object must have that property
3. Therefore: If I clearly and distinctly relate to the property of an object, then the object must have that property
4. I can clearly and distinctly relate existence to God, therefore God must have existence
What Philosophy means to me..
The formal definition of Philosophy can be stated as such: The Love of Knowledge (from the two Greek words philos and sophia). The material definition of Philosophy can be described as Lewis Pojman does:
[Philosophy] begins with wonder at the world, aims at truth and wisdom, and hopefully results in a life filled with meaning and moral goodness. It is centered in clarifying concepts and analyzing and constructing arguments regarding life’s perennial and perplexing questions. (Pojman, 2006).
Marcus Buckingham wrote a book called “Now Discover your strengths”, in this book, it was made evidently clear to me what I have almost always known, since becoming conscience of my own cognitive aberrations – I am truly a philosopher at heart.
Of my top 3 greatest strengths are Strategy, Learning and Context – I am driven by examining all portions of a problem and seeking the best and most intelligent strategy, constantly driven to learn and grow, taking a strong emphasis on the past to understand the context of every situation before looking towards the present in relation to the future.
Young children have this tendency to walk around in their lives and constantly ask “Why”, “Why”, “Why”; most adults (as I do) find this a rather annoying quality of children. However, I have never grown out of it myself.
From an early age, long before I was introduced to ideas like Descartes Method of Doubt, it has been my life’s goal to constantly question my own beliefs, question the teachings I have been given as a child, and to search for truth.
This quest has brought a lot of trouble and heart ache into my life, walking away from convictions that your friends and family hold to be true, because they are unsupportable and irrational can be a dark and lonely road, and yet, as was stated by Martin Luther when standing before the Church fathers at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convinced by holy scripture, or by evident reason… I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound”
Regardless of the problems in my life that the love of knowledge has caused, with this relentless drive in the pursuit of knowledge comes a greater appreciation and an awakened beauty, for each and every new concept that comes through and knocks down my world as I know it. As I grow and grasp, I am left with the sense of waking up on a summer’s morning inside of a hot and stuffy tent, unzipping the door and stepping out into fresh sunlight and to indescribable sights and sounds.
I will never cease to be awestruck through, in and around the world as it exists – I shall cling to the reformation motto of “Semper Reformanda” – and hope there never comes a time in my life that I am not ready, able and willing to learn and grow.
Philosophy to me is the foundation of my existence.
Works Cited
Oberman, H. A. (2006). Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pojman, L. P. (2006). Philosophy : The Pursuit of Wisdom 5th Ed. Belmont: Holly J. Allen.
Quid Est Veritas
Why did the Greeks Analyze and Critique their religion?
Philosophy from its inception has always tried to answer the quintessential question “Why is there something, rather than nothing” as well as the famous question of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate “Quid est Veritas?” (What is truth?). Our reading also describes what it feels to be the ultimate philosophical question: “What is the nature of the cosmos”
The Greek Philosophers like Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had within themselves what Philosopher’s many years later referred to as “our need to know God”. I think one of our strongest desires to know God, is to thus know ourselves. We want to understand God, because, as our creator, we are made in his image (so we are told in the book of Genesis) and the more we know about that image, the more we can understand about ourselves.
As Augustine of Hippo stated, our hearts are restless until they find their rest in God
Greek Philosophers had this insatiable desire to be filled with knowledge and understanding, but had at their disposal only a general revelation of the origins of humanity. They were, however, given this strong desire to seek out and study the nature of knowledge and the world around them.
It is interesting to me, to see many years later, the Apostle Paul walking into the Areopagus in Athens and using words from their own Philosophers, Epimenides and Aratus, to explain to them that they have this idea of God that has been placed in their minds through general revelation, and that if they truly want to know God, he is not far from any of them.
This is, as C.S. Lewis puts it in his book “Mere Christianity”,
God sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men.
The Greek Philosophers, therefore, I believe were analyzing and critiquing their religion to continue the ever relentless quest to answer the question “Quid Est Veritas?” which in bitter irony was the question asked of the man called Jesus of Nazareth, of which, he himself was the answer.
Works Cited
Augustine. (2002, 07 13). Confessions of St. Augustine Bishop of Hippo. Retrieved 12 07, 2007, from Leadership University: http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augconfessions/bk1.html
Bishop, P. (2007). Adventures in the Human Spirit. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Groothius, D. (2006, 05 15). Incorrect Pascal Quotes. Retrieved 12 07, 2007, from The Constructive Curmudgeon: http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2006/05/incorrect-pascal-quotes.html
Yesterday… a time forgotten before tomorrow even starts
I was young, I was 16. Apart from writing poetry and books, writing and performing music is another integrated part of my life. I have played (and still play) the Accordion, the Piano, the Clarinet, the Saxophone, and the guitar, as well as signing professionally.
There is so much music that touches me, touches my soul, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way. When I was growing up being born in the ’70’s, I was a child of the 80’s, so I listened to music of the 70’s and 80’s. I still find that music enjoyable, and love to laugh at how my taste in music has become to the younger generation what my parents taste in music was to so many of my contemporaries (although I love Zeppelin, The Moody Blues, The 4 Seasons, and many other groups that pre-date me).
I grew up in a Evangelical Christian family, and when we were very little, we started listening to A Cappella hymn tapes every night when going to sleep, every night of my childhood life – and so was instilled in me a love for the human voice.
When I grew into my teenage years, and I abandoned all that I knew to be good and wholesome, I moved to rap – and not just any rap, but hardcore, gangster rap. The kind that elevates death and violence towards human beings; it’s no wonder I then got into drugs, and started hanging out with shifty people and doing dangerous things.
When I got married, my wife (very quickly) put an end to listening to that type of music, although I have to say that even to this day a good rap beat and lyrical rhyme will catch my ear and take me back, to long ago days that can’t be forgotten.
As I grew older, I began to fall in love with classical music (In fact I started playing different classical piano pieces around 16), Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Debussy, and many others. The music is so relaxing, and yet, invigorating. You can float and slide over the notes and the intricate way in which they weave in and out to tell a story.
I’ve even written and recorded songs, and of course, my songs, unlike other people’s songs, have a special meaning to me; and yet, I’m not going to comment on one of my own songs this time (how narcissistic do I really want to seem? :-))
So here I am, one of the first nights of one of my first vocal performances that would set me into years of limelight and competitions. I was singing “In the still of the night”, I can remember it like it was yesterday.
It was very bright, it was a bit cold (it was late in the year, and we were in a big open gym). There were hundreds of people. As typically happens to me when I perform, or speak in public, I get totally lost in the moment, I forget where I am, I forget who I am; there is just me, and my audience, there is just me and my task at hand.
It was an A Cappella song, no instruments; boys singing only. I was standing in the front of a half circle, surrounded by my classmates. The song started up, and I was whisked away. I was singing to that special someone, I was singing like it was my first chance to make an impression and my last chance to ever sing again. I don’t remember the song (although I have a recording of it somewhere [this is how I hooked my wife *grin*], so I can listen to it still).
But when it was all over with, there was cheering, and a standing ovation. It was deafening in my own ears, it was a start of a beautiful thing.
But, in truth, none of this is what captures me back to that moment and time. In fact, when I recall that time, now, none of that happiness and being proud of my performance really shines through that much. When I think about that night, I can’t help but break down into uncontrollable shaky tears. It was right before I went on stage that night that we received a call at my parent’s house telling my parents that my nephew had passed away in his sleep that afternoon.
Even now, I can hear them say to me “You have a big performance tonight, you have to focus on that”, and I can only barely remember how upset they were. I blocked it from my mind. And what impresses itself the most on me from that evening, is that I did just that. It didn’t really bother me at the time, in fact, for years afterwards, I never quite came to a realization (and even now can’t fully grasp) of a parent’s worst nightmare of losing one of their children to the enemy of death.
How I could go on, as if nothing happened, when the world of someone who was close to me was completely destroyed and torn down, I still can’t even fathom to this day.
Sometimes it’s not even what a song says to you that creates that arresting moment, it’s not what you were doing, but what you weren’t doing that is forever emblazed on your mind. I can mourn now, but I didn’t mourn with them then.
And it is, so many times in our life, that we don’t realize the day to day monotonous things that we do aren’t really what’s important; it’s who we do them with, it’s who we share time with, and who we are there for when they need us most.
Being a mall rat… Humanities Assignment
Being a Mall Rat
One P.M. Thursday afternoon. It’s October, and the air is becoming crisp, and the leaves are turning colors and starting to fall. Today, feels like a swimming pool day. You know, in the middle of the summer, when it’s in the 90’s and the pool is around 70, when you step into that pool from 90 to 70, the 70 degree pool feels freezing, even though you tell yourself it isn’t; today, is like that; the sun is hot, the black leather seats of the car have absorbed the heat. While it’s one of the warmest days this week, probably close to the mid 60’s, stepping out of the car, feels like being doused into a pool on a summer afternoon. Today is a swimming pool day.
The sun is bright, but the sky is a dark grey, it doesn’t look like it will rain today, the clouds are transparent, but winter is coming. I’m driving, pulling into the parking lot. I live about 2 hours away from this town; I’m glad. I enjoy getting together with friends, spending time even with large groups of people that I have commonalities with, but I disdain crowds. Loud and noisy, waiting in lines, waiting at lights, waiting, waiting, waiting!
The parking lot smells distinctly of garlic. I’m sitting here watching people pull in and out, walk in and out. So many different people, fast walkers, slow walkers, mothers, fathers, old people, even teens, I wonder why the teens aren’t in school. The building here is one big building, hundreds of stores connected together. I’m sitting out near Best Buy, one of my favorite places to shop. The building is red brick, with bright signs on some of the markers. Best Buy in big bright letters, Country Buffet, right next to it. I become aware of my stomach, I’m hungry – I haven’t eaten yet today. I pull back out of my parking space, and drive around to the other side of the mall – the “food court” as they call it. I might as well accomplish something on this little endeavor.
Now, as I start walking to the doors – there are a set of 8 double doors – one set opening with a blue plate on the side for wheel chair access – I realize with trepidation that I’m going into the mall. I don’t really like the mall. Sometimes when talking to my wife, I compare it to a carnival. In my view, the carnival is obscene pollution for the senses. Thinking over the noise, the smells, the sights, the closeness of the crowds, I go, because my wife and children like to go, I don’t enjoy. There is one thing that I do like to do in the mall though, and as I’m on my way in, I start thinking, “Are they going to think of me as a sociopath”, I mean, they thought Ricky was!
There was a young lady pushing a stroller in, not a stroller that you would buy in the store, but one of those goofy children strollers, it almost looked like a bus, but it was red. She was very pretty, but as she turned, I saw that she was smoking. Her beauty dissolved, slightly, almost imperceptibly. I started to wonder if she smoked with that young child in her car, or in her home. Smoking is such a disgusting, destructive habit. I’ve lost two grandfathers to smoking. Oh well. I went to open the door for her, but another woman beat me to it. I walked through the side door, and opened the next door and held it for both of them. As we walked through the doors, I was overwhelmed with sights, and sounds.
The one thing that I enjoy doing in the mall is watching women and children. My wife teases me that, in regards to the women that I’m just remembering when I was young, and single, and thinking up all the different pick-up lines that I might use (and boy did we have some really retarded ones). But it’s so much more than that. It’s so much more than their bodies. I mean, God created the woman’s body, just to drive the man insane, in my mind there is no doubt. The curves, the way they walk and move, and hold themselves, they way they react, think, and view the world. But, more specifically, each and every one has a story to tell, a complex story, a history, a past, a present and a future.
As I look at them I see, beauty. The girl standing next to me in the line, her face, not overly beautiful, but just pretty, like the daughter in American Beauty, but this girls face is covered in freckles, her hair short curly brown, and her shirt, low cut. She must be here just to hang out; I don’t think she would be wearing that attire to work. The girl that just walked by, she had on tight, short, white shorts, very nice legs. So I start feeling guilty, knowing that this is an assignment, and realizing that maybe I should look at the guys too – see what kind of beauty I can find in them, so I don’t sound like a pervert, or something else. The guy that walks to me in line, as I’m standing there pondering what I’m really going to order. “Are you in line?” he asks. “No, go right ahead” I reply. He’s middle age, kind of has a Richard Gere look, graying white, slightly curly hair, a well defined nose, and he seems to have dark eyes. It’s no use; I just don’t see the beauty in men (Is that what defines a sociopath?). I mean, when I was young, and I found out that my father has an uncle that was Mr. Olympia and Mr. America, I decided that was what I wanted to do. I used to train real hard, and long, and I had the framing for it too. I thought the physique of these men, the huge masses of muscle, like rocks, jagged, etched, now that was beautiful. But, I’m digressing.
The smell of the Japanese food draws me in. I can remember the taste, the texture, squishy almost rubbery chicken, in the al-Dante noodles. My wife and I ate here a year or so ago, the food was good. There is a woman that just came into view, almost around the corner. Her face is very beautiful, she works at the mall, she is pushing a trash cart in front of her, but that does nothing to mar the beauty of her face. I’m sitting here thinking, that while this is an assignment purposed to discover and describe the environment of the mall, that people are probably totally going to find me weird, so I decided not to describe this girls facial beauty.
I ordered my food, and went and sat down. The tables were hard, and cold, the chairs were hard and cold, the floor, while I refused to reach down and touch it, because of how much dirt and germs it was harboring, however, being tile, I could imagine it was also hard and cold. I went and sat as far away from people as I could. They were all going to think I was weird anyway (I was speaking into a DAT recorder, rather than writing on a notepad).
The sounds, it was like a buzzing, almost like a summers evening sitting outside under the stars. The sounds of the crickets and tree frogs, and owls and coyotes all mixed together, most of the time I couldn’t pick out anything (like the sounds of the crickets or tree frogs), but once in a while there was a sound or a voice that rose above the din, like a coyote or an owl. I found it so odd that I could be sitting in the middle of a mall, with hundreds of people walking by me on every side, and I could still feel like I was lonely. I miss my family. I always miss my family on the days that I commute on this 2 hour one way drive.
There are all these beautiful little children running around. Like the cliché, the faces of angels (although, I’m sure, like most kids, they aren’t angelic, but their simple little smiles, they’re bright little eyes, for each and every child I look at, I think to myself that I hope they have a healthy, and safe family relationship, that they are getting the love and support that they need. It’s funny though, as much as I love my children, I cannot handle noise, confusion, I often pull into a shell when my children start running around the house and hollering, and laughing and fighting and yelling. It’s something I constantly need to work on.
So, here I am, finally done eating. Ready to go, I want to get back to work. I’m sure I have enough material to finish my assignment. I’ve enjoyed the time to contemplate life, the universe and everything after; although I think Douglas Adams has that saying trademarked. I’ll probably review my audio, and write this up over the weekend.
Why do they call us consumers?
My professor asked me a question today, he said:
I study a lot about metaphors and “consuming” and “consumer” as we use these terms today especially interest me. But what do you think of this: We don’t “consume” computers or cars, we “use” them. But when computer and car companies think of their customers, they speak of them as “consumers.”
Here was my response…
What they are trying to sell us, is not so much a product, but an idea. We consume their rhetoric, their ideals, and their sales pitches. Day in and day out, we are hypnotized to think we need products to be fulfilled, to be independent, or to be satisfied.
I think in this way – we are all consumers.
Do you surrender all?
In my Humanities course I was asked to comment on this story.
“A man went on a walk one day along the edge of a cliff, as he often did. This day, however, a strong wind came and blew him over the edge. Before falling to his death, he managed to grab a shrub. There he dangled, too weak to climb back up; his fate certain. Then he spied a beatiful flower nearby. It was like nothing he had ever seen before. The image of this flower seized him. Its brilliant blossom, its shape and size, its colors, its scent, its intricate design; for the few moments he had left, he caught a vision of absolute beauty. His grasp weakened, and he fell to his death.”
Here are my comments:
“It is said that in death, all things become clear.” – (Dan Brown, Digital Fortress)
It is unfair that I can’t comment on Tolstoy yet (or can I). 🙂
For now, I’ll stick with Dan Brown’s illustration. In our lives we spend so much time trying to get to a target destination that we often forget to enjoy the scenery on the way. When facing our ultimate demise, when facing the final rung on the ladder (so to speak), when, as humans, we are forced to come to the realization that our time on this earth is indefinite, when we come face to face with that realization, there is inevitably the awakening of the inner soul. The point where one begins to look around and realize what is most important. While not everyone can, or will undergo this during their lifetime (or even at the point of death), it is at the point of this surrender that all things become clear, and life has been put into perspective.
In reading this story, I have to wonder, as often as this young man had walked on this cliff, had he ever stopped to take the time to enjoy the breeze, the smells, the sounds, and the loftiness of the heights below him? How often do you think he passed that flower, just within view (or perhaps even reach), and yet, he had never seen its likes.
Studying the humanities gives me the opportunity to learn how to appreciate even the most simple and wonderful things about the world around me. Over the years, I have been a work-a-holic, driven and mad trying to control my own destiny, and make of the world, what I want it to be. Through this study, I hope to learn to better live my life, in what Bob Jacks in his book “Divine Appointments” calls “relaxed anticipation”. I hope to find more direction within myself to, as the colloquial statement goes: Learn to stop and smell the roses. I desire to come to the point of surrender, before I’m holding onto the edge of a cliff, waiting to take the plunge into the unknown.
University
So – I think I’m going back to school… LoL – I *think* because it all depends on how the financing works out – I think the government needs to realize that it doesn’t matter how much or how little you make – there is still no way to pay to go to school out of pocket.
I still ask myself why I’m doing this – I mean; I can’t get a better job; this degree can’t make me any more money – I think there are a couple reasons.
1) I love to learn – i’ve been reading and studying just about everything I can get my hands on for the last 6 or so years; but I have no paper to show it – I guess i’ve finally decided the paper would be nice.
2) I want a Masters Degree – In Divinity – but I can’t get it – until I have a bachelors.
3) I’m even thinking of a PhD in Philosophy – but of course, I first need the Bachelors, and then the masters.
But the government said, based on my income, I should be able to pay 17 grand out of pocket for this years school – I’m wondering what planet they come from – I could maybe afford about 10 grand; out of pocket; but my kids would have to stop eating… and we’d all have to stop wearing clothes too.
So, depending how the financing works out – I’m going back to school. I’m very excited about it!
At the same time, I’m wondering how anybody in their right mind could afford to go to school… @ 300 a credit hour – for the number of hours it takes to get a Bachelors degree – my school payment is going to be 800$ a month for 10 years – to pay it back. Most schools are more like 400-500 a credit hour – how can a college grad afford to pay 1100+ a month just on school loans …. I guess the idea is, once you start going to school, don’t stop until you can afford to stop. 🙂 [like when you die].
We’ll see….