"A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in their own toil."
-Ecclesiastes 2:24
This is (in my opinion) the wisest thing that the Bible proposes- which is fitting because it was said by Solomon, the self-proclaimed wisest man ever. The ancient king of Israel spent years pursuing all sorts of diversion and at the end of it all concluded that the best things in life are food, drink, and enjoying your work.
There is something so profound about the simplicity of this statement. We feel relaxed and at peace after a good meal when our dietary needs have been met. We feel invigorated by the refreshing effect of our world's most essential compound (H2O). And there's nothing like the simple satisfaction of a job well done. I'm finding that this is definitely the case in my life.
I have kept a steady job since I was fourteen, but due to circumstances beyond my control (those of you who know me well know what they are) I had to quit my first job several months ago. After months of joblessness (which I had manically spent writing a novel and completing several school credits online), I got another job, and it's so peaceful. There's nothing like finishing the day and realizing that my actions have been productive. It really is the simple things...
And I can't forget the people I share them with. I've made so many new friends in the last year (shit, even in the last month)- I'd hate to add to a list formulated by the wisest man on Earth, but I think our human relationships are just as physically necessary as food and water and as metaphysically necessary as our work. I love my friends dearly and I don't think I could have any fulfillment without them.
I'm in my Junior year so the counselors are talking a lot about college and career choices. I'm a little stressed and apprehensive about it all, but I'm trying very hard not to lose perspective. I don't want to race through life like a steam engine full of hot air and ambition and then look back at the end of my life and wonder if I had actually lived. I don't want to spend the first five years trying to get with the plan and the next five years trying to be with my friends again. I'd rather focus on the simple things: my food, my drink, my work, my friends, and existence's most poignantly beautiful attribute: that it's all temporary.
I'm sure when you say your "friends" you mean me, but you're just generalizing to save face. Love you too buddy.
ReplyDeleteThat and I'd rather not get too personal. This is a public blog...
ReplyDeleteYou will enjoy college very much wherever you go if you realize that there's not a major difference between many institutions of higher learning. Also, if the traditional path of HS, 4 year undergrad, and beyond is attractive, then go for it; however, there are many ways to realize your academic/professional/personal ambitions. James Murphy sure had an unconventional track to success:)
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, what exactly do you mean by unconventional?
ReplyDeleteAs in, what could I do besides a 4-year plan?
ReplyDeleteJust wondering why you quoted only half the verse above? This partial statment was originolly a flowing of thought that was several verses together. The way you are approaching it is like quoting FDR saying , "the only thing we have ..blank ........." and leaving off the main point. "to fear, is fear itself." Your statments about what Solomon said and meant are very misleading when you remove it from context. All interpretation on any level must be done in context or we would have all kinds of buffet lines of propsitions to choose from, only selecting that which we thought to be palatable regardless of if they conformed to reality as we know it or not. In chapter 12 this wise man concludes with....
ReplyDeleteOk... well, I'll begin by agreeing you that "Solomon" ends on a religious note, encouraging his readers to follow god's laws and such, but what you probably don't know is that most scholars believe that much of the last two chapters of Ecclesiastes were altered by various scribes before it was put into the Bible- "Solomon" very well may have not written the conclusion that you point out.. I was suspicious of this before I researched anything... the prose seems to take such a drastic turn towards the end- both emphatically and thematically. Furthermore, most scholars do not believe that Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon at all- mostly because of some odd tones and attitudes that are relayed throughout the book. The JPS Bible Commentary: Ecclesiastes (http://books.google.com/books?id=TX9DuDb9hgQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=commentary+ecclesiastes&hl=en#v=onepage&q=commentary%20ecclesiastes&f=false) offers many insights on the scholarship of the book.
DeleteNow as to context... you are right, I did leave out the parts about following god's laws. I did so because I do not agree with those parts. That is my prerogative and I will exercise it without restraint. I wasn't really trying to make a scholarly point with this post- my insight was anecdotal and nothing else.
Which leaves me with the most scathing criticism of your reasoning I can come up with :-). You say that I must put things "into context" when I propose Biblical texts. But the depth of the context that one goes into is entirely arbitrary. For instance, some pastors go back and discuss Biblical history and translation and stuff. My parent's pastor typically only goes back a verse or two. Also, I hope you recognize the double-edged sword that you are attempting to wield. There are many contradictions in the Bible when one takes it as a whole.
So lets take the verse that I quoted and assess it along with the whole Bible in mind... The verse advocates finding enjoyment in food, and yet all throughout the Bible, fasting is advocated. Even Jesus fasted. The same sort of contradiction is noticeable when we look at the teachings of Jesus. Recall that he rebuked Martha for committing herself to her work- he'd rather her sit around and listen to him like her ditsy sister. So what then is the good christian to do? Enjoy his food or fast? Work or be idle? Both? I don't fucking understand it :-).
I hope this answers your question.
In short, I don't agree that most scholars believe that chapter 12 was added. Some, some, have suggested but none say that it is conclusive. And yes I am aware of that. I also think the idea that the bible is full of contradictions has been long dismissed by any scholar that knows what they are talking about. Just because you can't interpret something correctly in context does not mean that it's a contradiction. Really, your much smarter than to say something that trivial. As for context, I can easily point out any number of people that do just that on any subject. Obviously a surface level explanation is not what I am talking about. One thing I totally agree with, ......you don't understand. . Your prerogative!
ReplyDeleteAnd yes I am aware of the grammatical differences or the errors in geophaphy that people like to point to and say, "see there, it's a contradiction", as if they just completely made the bible collapse under the weight of their discovery. Of course there are pleanty of little errors in the bible translations such as these but they have nothing to do with the meta narrative of the bible and the literary style of that time and place.
ReplyDeleteAdditional note, when I talk about a scholar, I mean someone who has dedicated their life not only in education but as well in vocation to the study of ancient manuscripts. Not someone who has a PhD in a lanugauge and that teaches histroy or such. But someone who actually lives and breathes ancient documents. And many of them are not what we would refer to as "believers" or Chirstians. I could care less about their personal belief system, I am only interested in truth.
ReplyDeleteHmm, and what is truth but the things you decide that you believe in? When I read Ecclesiastes it seems sketchy to me; therefore I'm inclined to be skeptical of it. You're not, good for you.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the statement: truth is exclusive by definition. ?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, can there be two diametrically opposite statements that are both true. Not in the sense of what's true for me is not for you.... That's personal preference. Is truth, reality, exclusive by its very definition? If not, why not? Thanks
I don't think that it is because what is true is subject to change. For instance I could be a racist and say some sort of absurd statement like "all black people steal things". I could later in life outgrow my bigotry and come to the more logical conclusion that "not all black people steal things". Which is true? That depends on your own personal opinion. Neither one is really true until someone decides that it is, and even then it only applies to that person. If that scenario actually happened, then yes, two diametrically opposite statements can both be true. They're just true at different times to different people. I'm not entirely sure what argument you're trying to make, I agree that truth is exclusive in the moment (from an incredibly logical perspective). But discard logic for a moment and realize that people can decide what they deem to be truth however they decide to do so. Our various epistemologies are subjective and derived from a variety of sources. Someone has every right to make the absurd statement that all black people both do and do not steal things. If they see it as truth, who are you to say that they're wrong. My views on reality tend to stick pretty close to Kant's Transcendental Idealism. If you are the sojourner that you seem, I think you'll enjoy reading about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism
ReplyDeleteSo....would the statement....light travels at the speed of 186,282.4 miles per second be a true statement or is it just subjective so that if I say it does not then my truth is just as valid? Does truth end in me, or is there something else it terminates in? Am I the definer of all truth, or are there truths that are beyond mans authority? Simply put, is there objective truth or are we all stuck in a strickly subjective world? I Kant stop asking......
ReplyDeleteI am not arguing btw, I am just asking questions. You make a lot of absolute statements in your blogs and I like see what you say about things. Thats all.
ReplyDeleteAt the end, our presuppositions are either true or false about anything. Then we go about the task of gathering information to confirm so. Some would call this a world view although that word has been mostly used by religeous groups in the last few decades it still applies to everyone. The reason you are a subjectivist is because of your world view. You live based on a set of presuppositions that you have decided are true. Then you go about your life gathering evidence to back your case. It's perfectly logical for you to believe there is no truth, no ultimate meaning, no purpose, etc...because you are simply following out your pre-supposed ideas to there logical conclusion. It's why sexual ethics or abortion are not stand alone topics. They don't exist in a vacuum, they are part of a world view. And logically the belief you or anyone has for or against them is formulated through your world view. How you interpret all the data, not just parts of it. And in order for something to be considered.... means that it has already been interpreted through a world view. Theres nothing new that is being talked about. It's all been done before. We individuals are just gathering evidence to continue our individual beliefs. The Christian, not any old reliegious person, but the Christian begins in Hebrews 11:3, " By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." On the other hand, your world view would say something like, " By faith we understand that nothing created something. And that nothing, being nothing, somehow created something, although nothing is nothing and can do nothing." From this platform, that niether group can ultimatly prove, we both begin with are presuppositions and build our cases. All I am asking you is does yours work? Does it conform to reality as we know it? We can know truth, absolute truth, the speed of light can be tested and confirmed to be true, it's not subjective, so if that is so, how's the rest of your interpretaitoin of the data stack up? Thats all I'am asking. I am not asking about if it's raining in Arkansas and is that true? I'm asking about your base presuppositional statements. Meaning, purpose, moralitly, and Origin. These are the main questions that the rest flow from. How's your world view answer these? Now don't be jummpy to throw God out the window, I am not asking if you beleive in God or ID or anything. So don't go think I am trying to convert you to anything....you would be wrong. I just think it intersting how people argue the non existentence of God based on how he behaviors or "what kind of God would allow evil.." etc...What if God is evil, what if he's bad...who cares at this point if you don't like his behavior...so please answer more intellegently than Hitchens and Dawkins and sam and the others who just had a bad youth experience or don't care for Gods behavior with the poor cannanite people...surley that's worn out by now. Surley we can come up with a better answer than Dawkins, " I just see no need to inject God into the search" Really, you just don't think we need to discuss what billions of people, many more intellegent and more accomplished than you have clung to unto thier dying breath. Really? "The cosmos will have it's Darwin given enough time...." So in the mean time we just don't need to think....... just stop worrying becasue their probably isnt a God." I am sure he is a great biologist and that he has made a lot of money talking about something he hasn't a clue about. So please don't answer with the same stupid remarks that those guys are using.
Thanks
I agree with your ideas on worldview for the most part. The only things I would question are your semantics and how you views truth and falsity. I do not thing that there is any absolute truth that is entirely discernible to us as humans (again look up transcendental idealism). We must rely on our perceptions (the phenomenal) and use trusty weapons like Occam's Razor to formulate our worldviews- that I do not deny. I'm just not arrogant enough to suppose that all is knowable. I'd say we really agree for the most part and live our lives accordingly. I do not get up every morning and ponder whether or not the sun will come up- It always has and it wouldn't surprise me if it continues such for the remainder of my existence. I'm saying that there are things that are simply incomprehensible. That my phenomenal experiences on Earth only have so much value.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I'll move to your next point. I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement that you made, "There's nothing new that is being talked about. It's all been done before. We individuals are just gathering evidence to continue our individual beliefs." That makes philosophical musing seem quite nihilistic. If there is nothing new then why bother? Then why are we discussing our "worldviews" as you call them at such length? There's always room for new ideas, perspectives, and (sometimes) even knowledge.
I don't see why you assume that I believe in evolution and the Big Bang. I don't really consider myself with origin. There really isn't a whole lot that backs up either side of the argument that seems too compelling to me. I know that theoretical physics has supported the fact that there are things going on in the world that don't really make sense (Theory of Special Relativity for instance). I know that the world exists and that's good enough for me. You're also mistaken when you say that I deny God's existence on a moral basis. I deny God himself on a moral basis. That's to say that if God does exist I will not follow him because he is immoral. I deny his existence on an entirely anecdotal level. I have seen nothing and experienced nothing in my life that has pointed me to God or backed up his existence. I am an atheist for that reason. It's anecdotal, but it's good enough for me. I don't need much prompting to dispense of a burdensome worldview that limits my epistemological boundaries and stifles my hedonistic impulses. I want to have fun and I will avoid any belief system that keeps me from it.
Meaning, purpose and morality are no more that arbitrary facets of the human experience that are anecdotal in their creation and have no correspondence to any sort of transcendent ideological precedent. That's all that needs to be said. I have meaning, purpose and morality; however, I do not base them off of anything more than my own experiences and emotions.
Please name one thing in life that is new to mans inquiry of origin, meaning, destiny, or Morality. I have not said that all, as in everything in total knowledge, I am simply Asking is anything absolutely true. Such as the speed of light.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell you still have not said anything. All you are trying to convey is that all of life, every detail, is based strictly upon your point of view at any given time. That's ridiculous. You don't live like that for one hour much less all day everyday. You dont get in your car and come to a four way stop and see a Mac truck coming and say , " I don't perceive that truck to be real, therefore I can pull out and go. " you may, but reality will soon set in as you are splattered by the Mac truck. Your desire to be a rebel against everything leaves you unable to rebel against anything. This is the outcome of that way of thinking and in thr real world it doesn't work for a minute . You desire unencumbered free thinking and pursuit of knowledge but not If it leads you to a system of thought that corresponds with reality. That's what your really saying. I think you know better than to settle for that bs. Coherence is basic to logic and as far as I can tell it means nothing to you. That's what we describe as insane. Your like the building at Ohio state that was built with no purpose but to glory in post modernity. Doors lead to nothing, stairs go half way to nowhere. But guess what, the foundation is correct and perfect. Why? Because it must be. It doesn't work otherwise and the building would not stand. Imagine that. A foundation is needed.
Jesus Christ, you are so closed minded. I'm not trying to lay out entire philosophical ideologies for you. I'm summarizing. Read the fucking material yourself. I don't need a foundation. One new thing, OK... special theory of relativity. Light may move at a constant rate as you say but it doesn't necessarily change like anything else would if your Mac truck was driving beside it. For instance. If I was driving my car going 30 mph and you were driving the Mac truck going 60 mph, I would clock you at 30 mph. because I'm driving at half your speed. That works for (almost) everything and it makes sense. Physicists have maintained that for years. Then Einstein showed that light always moves at a constant speed (like you said) regardless of the position or speed of the object measuring the light's speed. This doesn't make sense at all and it changes everything we know about light. Light also functions as both a particle and a wave, explain that! There will always be new material in the scientific community that will correlate back to philosophy and the assumptions that the human race has maintained for years. It seems incredibly ignorant for you to say otherwise. So the speed of light is constant, but considering everything we know about kinesthetics- this makes absolutely no sense! There's nothing absolute about the speed of light at all because it's so relative.
ReplyDeleteYou're frankly not understanding me at all, which makes me wonder if you ever will. I can talk for hours about my opinions and beliefs, but there comes a point where people are closed off to what I have to say and intellectually inadequate in comprehending it. I don't mean to be mean, I'm just saying the accusations that you're making have no basis.
"All you are trying to convey is that all of life, every detail, is based strictly upon your point of view at any given time." I did not say that at all... I don't know where you're getting it. And none of this has a fucking thing to do with rebellion. We acquire knowledge our whole lives and we use it when we make decisions- that's what anecdotal means, based on personal experiences.
"You desire unencumbered free thinking and pursuit of knowledge but not If it leads you to a system of thought that corresponds with reality. That's what your really saying."
I am not saying this at all! I just told you the following: "We must rely on our perceptions (the phenomenal) and use trusty weapons like Occam's Razor to formulate our worldviews- that I do not deny. I'm just not arrogant enough to suppose that all is knowable." I function the same as you do in most regards, I just don't ascribe as much importance to my perceptions. That is all! Jesus, I just said it too...
Also you so seem to be relying on science quite a bit... seems kind of ironic that you deny evolution any credibility. It's almost as if you're picking and choosing the parts of science that appeal to you. Is that coherent? I think not...
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a high ranking member of the intelligentsia. I guess us lowly ignorant people will just keep thinking that out there somewhere there is a real thing called truth. That when the Nazi's killed millions of people, or if you like, a religious group killed millions of people, that justice mattered. That when your sister or mom is raped it's not just inconvenient to society but it's really wrong. When someone murders and sexually abuses a child that it just might be more than a simple slip in the DNA structure and that that person was an oddity. But when you talk about nothing being true except what I say is,and nothing has meaning outside of what I give it, then I am just wondering how that works. Maybe I am to dumb to think that there is such a thing as coherence in thought, or consistancy in suppositions. And thank you for defining anecdotal....never would have guessed you where using subjective observation in all you say and think. As for me being close minded, again, I am just asking you questions about topics you write about. Your the one that makes a statment about your belief, "we must rely on our preceptions....etc" I am just asking more in depth questions and adding what I believe. Is that not why you blog? Do you not want to interact with people and discuss. If your just bloging to read yourself...that's a little weird don't you think? I actually ran into a real close minded person today. At McDonalds they wanted full price for the tea I bought, even when I told them I believed with all my being that it should be cheaper. Dang close minded people. Ya know the bank is the same way. Everytime they ask, " is there anything else I can get for you today" And I respond with, a sack of hundreds would be nice, they don't give it to me. freaking close minded jack wagons!
ReplyDeleteI will give you a more straight response to your response. In the above response you quote me," all you are trying to convey is that all of life, every detail, is based strickly upon your point of view at any given time." Then you deny saying aything like that. Two paragraphs later you reaffirm, "I am not saying this at all! I just told you the following: " we must rely on our preceptions (the phenomenal) and use trusty weapons like Occam's Razor to formulate our worldviews- that I do not deny." So which is it? Either you interpret all the data in your life at any given time from your point of observation, or you don't. On one hand you say your life is not based on your point of view and then you turn around and say it is. So now you don't believe in the law of non-contridiction? You beleive in both/ and? Is that correct? Maybe us dumb people would walk up to the intersection and see a bus coming and realize that I and the bus cannot occupy the same space on the road at the same time. It's either me or the bus! Would you agree that if a person feels that they can occupy the same space, really beilieves that they can, trusts their observations, that to them they can and will occupy the same space and both the person and bus would be uneffected by each other is a true statement because based on that persons use of Occam's Razor his simple view must be true?
Just one more while they scrape that guys guts off the windshield...why would you not think you need a foundation to anchor your thoughts to? Are you the measure of all things? If so we come back to the first question: why is anything right ,wrong or indifferent if all of us are self ruled? Let me guess your answer....because I ....insert choice of intelligent four letter word, say so. Great answer!
If you would rather just talk to people that affirm your blogs and agree with you, I will be glad to honor that request. If your bloging about these big subjects and just being a teenage ranter then thats ok as well.
I have no problem corresponding with you. I just notice something that looks suspiciously like futility when your thought processes run in circles. My epistemological views have nothing to do with time. I don't know why you continue to come back to that. I take into account all of my life experiences when I make a judgment.
Delete"So which is it? Either you interpret all the data in your life at any given time from your point of observation, or you don't. On one hand you say your life is not based on your point of view and then you turn around and say it is."
My life is based on my point of view. I have no idea what you even mean by this. I am a narcissist, and I think that I'm smarter than you because you cling to antiquated, contradictory, inherently hypocrisy-ridden ideologies that I find to be absurd. As long as you hold this opinion, I will maintain that I am smarter than you. That goes for every christian. I am a part of the intelligentsia (at least whatever exists in this intellectually stagnated area), and you can provide come-backs to my taunts all you want, but once again I will remind you of your own morality. I can be as mean to you as I want because I get to decide what is right and wrong. You do not because the Bible says to be kind and loving. Your taunts are not; therefore, you are sinning. I hope your god forgives you.
I think it would be proper and wise to not continue. I don't get any kicks out of responding in an ugly way and you obviously don't have any answers to the questions I am asking. If you really think that calling me a christian is ammunition for, " being smarter than me," then we really don't have anything to talk about. I hope you find your way and have a great life.
ReplyDeleteBest wishes
Hey Tim, this is Mason. I couldn't help but commenting on this after reading that last remark of yours. I just typed out a rather heated response that didn't go through. That may be a good thing. Hopefully we can talk in person about topics like this at some point. Seeing as how you are much more enlightened and intellectually respectable than me, it might be good for me. But I do think I would like to join this "intellgentsia" mentioned. Is it open to just any highschool or university student? Enjoying your blogs!
ReplyDelete