September 4th, 2012
Once the philosopher finds himself participating in and engaged with the world, he will also find himself in a state of alienation. Alienation is primarily two-fold: an alienation from the self and alienation from the world. It is the philosopher’s goal and, as Hegel may agree, the purpose of the philosopher. The separation of the Geist is really an underlying notion that plagues philosophical inquiry. Philosophy… does not merely discuss alienation; it is a peculiarly significant manifestation of it. With this very simple and subtle premise, the very notion and presence of philosophical inquiry entails a separation from absolute mind, Geist. It is certainly consistent that the philosopher lives in a state of alienation and philosophizing is contingent upon being in a state of alienation, for if Geist were an actuality all reality would be understood. Hence, the philosopher’s attempt to provide a reconstruction of reality and thus providing a purpose and need to overcome alienation.
Alienation from others and from the world is ultimately an alienation from the self as well. Human anthropology, according to Hegel, is a man-to-man function. Participation in the world is participation in all of mankind and humanity. Any action is for the contribution of man. For Hegel, this was religion at its highest, a religion of Nature.
read more »
June 22nd, 2012
The problem is how one overcomes or reconciles the absurdities. If one chooses not to overcome or reconcile the absurdities then that is a problem as well. I will argue that living a life by accepting the absurdities with no reconciliation is impractical and cannot be lived consistently. If a person lives the absurd life consistently then the consistency is teleological in the practical fulfillment of life. If a person lives the absurd life inconsistently then the point of practical living is impossible (there will be an evaluation of this paradox). Camus and Sartre are correct in their recognition of an objective absurdity. However, the problem with this recognition is the adoption of their conclusions being true. Camus and Sartre continue to live of a life whilst understanding them to be meaningless, valueless, and purposeless. Nietzsche embraces the paradox of objective absurdity and adopts an illusory lifestyle of meaning. The theists who attempt to recognize a divine telos are either correct (i.e. Dostoevsky) or incorrect to a certain degree (i.e. Kierkegaard). Kierkegaard’s (Either/Or) “blind leap” is an inconsistent application of a divine telos to himself; thus, making the “blind leap” and inconsistent attempt at consistency. Kierkegaard does not apply the understanding of a divine telos in a way in which it may be coherently be understood and applied to one’s life. He simply meets the absurdity at a halfway point.
November 26th, 2011
The following is a guest blog post by Mike Burnette. Mike “MoonDog” Burnette is a newly retired U.S. Air Force veteran who has worked 30 years for American Forces Radio & Television and commercial radio stations. Mike has a Bachelor’s in Telecommunications from Liberty University and an M.A. in Public Administration from Bowie State University. He is now a media consultant and creator of “MoonDog’s Media House.” He has proven success increasing the attractiveness and effectiveness of communication, awareness, understanding, participation, and production of key themes and messages for television, radio, and social media. You can view his website at moondogsmediahouse.com.
You could describe me as a binge thinker. Often perfectly satisfied hanging out on the periphery of ignorance. I occasionally strolled into the hallowed halls of academia–mostly when challenged by opposing worldviews–and then only selectively dipping my toe into the apologetics pool. I could bandy about words like existential, presupposition, relativism—and quote what little I understand from Francis Schaeffer—“Ah, what an intellectual high!”
Each binge is informative, satisfying, and provides quick, easy answers in debate to support my Christian worldview—in many cases just to replenish my ever weakening apologetic force-field. I have given my life to Christ and believe there is rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith; however, I was not loving God–with all of my mind—it was more like by the seat of my pants.
Truthfully I have never jumped entirely into the apologetic pool and certainly had no idea of how deep the waters ran. That is until I encountered the likes of Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Alister McGrath, and John Lennox. Up until then I was quite content challenging my skeptic and atheist friends with my devastating charm and sophisticated good looks—or was it my full-throttled arrogance and freshman understanding of the brilliant text Introduction to Philosophy “A Christian Perspective” by Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg?!
read more »
October 24th, 2011
Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) believed that man lived on three different stages: the aesthetic level, ethical level, and the religious level. The self-centered aesthetic man finds no ultimate meaning in life and no true satisfaction, which leads finally to boredom and a sickness with life. Kierkegaard recognized the objective standards of good and realized that one cannot live up to what the standard demands. This results in a sickness, unhappiness, and despair. The religious stage is where reconciliation can be found. He finds forgiveness of sins and a personal relationship with God, an overcoming of alienation, and a restoration of the two previous stages.
read more »