I wrote the following as my final essay for my author studies class of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. I've incorporated the suggestions my professor made (mostly removing unnecessary citations) and thought I'd post it for you readers on the interweb. Let me know what you think, LotR fans!
One of the most dynamic characters the reader encounters in The Lord of the Rings is that of Aragorn, son of Arathorn. There are two senses in which this character develops throughout the series, the first being a sort of traditional character growth, most of which had already taken place well before the founding of the fellowship, and the second resembling more of an unveiling of the character to his companions, which takes place over the year or so from when he meets the hobbits to when he is crowned King of Gondor. Naturally, the two developments are related to one another, but the distinction is fairly significant, and becomes apparent if one realizes that much of Aragorn's development takes place long before he met Frodo and the Hobbits in Bree, and is recorded after the closing lines of the novel in its appendices.
Aragorn, we learn in Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings, began his life under a false name with no knowledge of his true kingly lineage. He spent his first twenty years under the name Estel, or “Hope.” Little is said of this time, except that Elrond came to love him as a son, and that the period ended when Aragorn “returned to Rivendell after great deeds in the company of the sons of Elrond; and Elrond...saw that he was fair and noble and...would yet become greater in body and in mind.” At this point, Elrond rewarded Aragorn with his true name, true heritage, and many—though not yet all—of the heirlooms of his house. Shortly thereafter, Aragorn first sees Arwen, the daughter of Elrond, and falls immediately in love with her. This is perhaps the only brash action which is attributed to Aragorn, who throughout the novel itself makes every decision cautiously and thinking heavily of the consequences. However, even if Aragorn did not think fully through the repercussions of his love, he did stick by his decision, demonstrating even from an early age a genuine sense of commitment.
There are two major spans of time between Aragorn's first loving Arwen and his appearance in The Fellowship of the Ring. The first is a space of about thirty years, after which Arwen sees Aragorn come into his own and strong (not to mention clad in Elvish clothes). Though we are not told all of Aragorn's deeds in this time, we can gather from chronologies that it was in this time that he met and befriended Gandalf, and that he served both the King of Rohan and the Steward of Gondor in disguise. We learn four attributes of Aragorn's character from these facts. First of all, he keeps high company, since he manages to befriend a member of the Maiar. Secondly, though he knows his high birth and has been given such tokens as could prove his rank, he chooses to still serve until the time is right for his ascension. Thirdly, though he serves, he offers no one his allegiance, or else he would not have served two rival, though friendly, kingdoms of men. Fourth and finally, he has learned well the value of secrecy, following Elrond's lead in hiding his heritage. Arwen, seeing these changes in him, falls in love with him and the two commit to faithfulness to one another.
After receiving Arwen's pledge of love, Aragorn again turned to traveling and adventuring. He spent the next thirty-eight years protecting the North as a Ranger, taking time for such individual tasks as hunting and jailing Gollum, before meeting with the hobbits in Bree. At some point in this period, he also met Bilbo, and began his friendship. It is likely from this friendship that Aragorn learned to appreciate hobbits. This period more or less solidifies Aragorn's kingly nature, and the majority of his development after this point is the unveiling of which I spoke earlier.
When Aragorn first meets the hobbits, he is not trusted, having all but completely hidden his goodness beneath a rough exterior. Butterbur, who has seen him many times, mistrusts him and warns the Hobbits to avoid him out of genuine concern. He appears, at first, merely a gruff man of the wilderness, skilled in fighting and perhaps in hunting, but with few other attributes certain. After Frodo is stabbed at Weathertop, however, he shows himself also to know something of healing, even if it is only enough to slow the effect of the Nazgûl's blade until they could reach Elrond in Rivendell. He continues to quest throughout the world after they reach Rivendell, and reveals his true identity to more companions as they set out to destroy the Ring. But the next significant unveiling is that he was wiser even than Gandalf in at least one sense: he knew tragedy would befall the Fellowship if they travelled through Moria, and for lack of regard for his counsel, Gandalf was lost. However, this is also what forces the next change in Aragorn—whereas before he was able to rely on his wise friend for leadership, now he was forced to take his place as a true leader. Where at first he is hesitant, pulled by alternating desires, he ultimately makes a bold decision and begins to use his inborn authority to lead.
Aragorn, in leadership, continues to reveal his name at need, in such cases as when Éomer demands the company identify themselves in Rohan. When Gandalf returns from the dead, Aragorn yields leadership back to him, not so much out of reliance, as he apparently did at first, but more out of respect. When they must part ways next, Aragorn does not bemoan their fate. Indeed, very little is said of Aragorn at all, whose dialog is sometimes recorded even without a hearer. I would therefore consider it reasonable to say that he was entirely at peace with the parting.
Once Gandalf has departed, Aragorn takes possession of the palantír and takes it from Sauron's control, showing that he, unlike Saruman, could not only withstand but overpower the will of the Dark Lord. From this point on, few of his choices are really developments or unveilings for the reader, only the natural actions of a man who knows that the times are grim and his destiny is high. Even in his decision to rally the dead army and his decision to ride, perhaps to his death, against the gates of Mordor, seem in keeping with the man we have met already. After the victory, he seeks a sign by which to claim his rightful kingship and his queen, but he himself is already ready for this, it cannot be called “change.” The only real change that remains in him is long after the events concerning the Ring are over—in his final days, Aragorn chooses to meet his end as he grows weary, not staying even for his love for Arwen. This is the final and most important change, as it allows him to return to the legacy of his forebears, not only men of Gondor, but the mighty Númenoreans as well.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A Response to the Administration's Spin
In a recent issue of the Aviso, Malone University's newspaper, one of the administration whom I will call “Dr. S” addressed the concerns about the changes in Malone's admissions requirements. But very little of what he said sounded even possible to my ears, let alone true. I am so disturbed by the most recent article that I felt a response was not only in order, but absolutely necessary. This is a mildly revised version of my response, going play by play through Dr. S's article.
I'd like to begin by dealing with an ungrounded claim in Dr. S's first paragraph, which was also copied and had attention drawn to it as a particularly relevant quotation: “Please know that the leadership of Malone is committed to preserving and strengthening standards, quality and relationships.” This sounds very nice. My only problem with it is that it is in response to concerns that the admissions standards and thereby quality of academic achievement of Malone have been lowered and thereby weakened. I feel that I show in this response how the new system reduces the relationship potential of Malone admissions.
Dr. S first defends the new admissions standards by saying that the scholarships were not competitive, “were not distributed more broadly to our incoming students,” and that the school was “lagging behind in the timing in which we would make our scholarship awards.” Dr. S never defines what he meant by timing, but that is a minor issue. He only points out that “Now, every student that meets our admissions requirements will receive some form of... scholarship or grant.”
For those of you who don't know, the word “scholarship” comes from “scholar,” and refers to an amount of money awarded to students who excel in scholastic endeavors. To give a scholarship to everyone defeats its purpose, especially if done on an institutional level—after all, it would save a considerable amount of red tape if Malone simply cut tuition by the relevant amount for everyone, and this would not cheapen the word “scholarship” by broadening it out. I have no issue with grants being given to any student, but again, if you are going to give the money to everyone, it is much smarter to just cut the tuition.
Dr. S's second point is that the application pool has been redistributed among the admissions counselors according to the students' surnames instead of their geographic region. This is designed to broaden the focus of admissions, but will also have the negative effect of cutting down admissions relationships with particular regions.
Dr. S went on to say how Malone now receives a wider pool of “ethnic and geographic diversity.” He claims that both have been hindered by the smaller applicant pool, and that now we receive applications from students that will do well in college. This is quite possible—they may do very well. However, if they are admitted due to lower admissions standards, then many in this group will do less well than those admitted on the previous admissions standards. Not to mention, the claim that lowering the admissions requirements will allow more ethnic diversity at Malone does not strike me as the most appropriate of statements.
The next point Dr. S makes is that “one other impact of setting this new admissions requirement is related to college readiness.” He goes on to explain that these lower standards are still enough to project that the students will achieve a probational status GPA. That is ridiculous. We should not be aiming for probational students. Malone should certainly be admitting some probational students, but the general admissions standards should strive for excellence, not adequacy.
Dr. S's last point is that the new recruitment standard will be more aggressive and will be streamlined. The only specifics he mentions are eliminating brochures. I have no issue with this, it is one example of smart use of resources (although the majority of this claim is left unexplained, and I would have liked more information).
In his closing remarks, Dr. S reminds us of our Presidents words to “begin with the end in mind.” The end, for Dr. S in this article, is “to increase residential population, provide competitive scholarships, and strengthen our academic programs.” I have shown in this article that I do not believe the new standards accomplish this goal. But what is more importantly, we should focus less on academics, and more on what Malone claims is its continuing commitment: Christ's Kingdom First.
I'd like to begin by dealing with an ungrounded claim in Dr. S's first paragraph, which was also copied and had attention drawn to it as a particularly relevant quotation: “Please know that the leadership of Malone is committed to preserving and strengthening standards, quality and relationships.” This sounds very nice. My only problem with it is that it is in response to concerns that the admissions standards and thereby quality of academic achievement of Malone have been lowered and thereby weakened. I feel that I show in this response how the new system reduces the relationship potential of Malone admissions.
Dr. S first defends the new admissions standards by saying that the scholarships were not competitive, “were not distributed more broadly to our incoming students,” and that the school was “lagging behind in the timing in which we would make our scholarship awards.” Dr. S never defines what he meant by timing, but that is a minor issue. He only points out that “Now, every student that meets our admissions requirements will receive some form of... scholarship or grant.”
For those of you who don't know, the word “scholarship” comes from “scholar,” and refers to an amount of money awarded to students who excel in scholastic endeavors. To give a scholarship to everyone defeats its purpose, especially if done on an institutional level—after all, it would save a considerable amount of red tape if Malone simply cut tuition by the relevant amount for everyone, and this would not cheapen the word “scholarship” by broadening it out. I have no issue with grants being given to any student, but again, if you are going to give the money to everyone, it is much smarter to just cut the tuition.
Dr. S's second point is that the application pool has been redistributed among the admissions counselors according to the students' surnames instead of their geographic region. This is designed to broaden the focus of admissions, but will also have the negative effect of cutting down admissions relationships with particular regions.
Dr. S went on to say how Malone now receives a wider pool of “ethnic and geographic diversity.” He claims that both have been hindered by the smaller applicant pool, and that now we receive applications from students that will do well in college. This is quite possible—they may do very well. However, if they are admitted due to lower admissions standards, then many in this group will do less well than those admitted on the previous admissions standards. Not to mention, the claim that lowering the admissions requirements will allow more ethnic diversity at Malone does not strike me as the most appropriate of statements.
The next point Dr. S makes is that “one other impact of setting this new admissions requirement is related to college readiness.” He goes on to explain that these lower standards are still enough to project that the students will achieve a probational status GPA. That is ridiculous. We should not be aiming for probational students. Malone should certainly be admitting some probational students, but the general admissions standards should strive for excellence, not adequacy.
Dr. S's last point is that the new recruitment standard will be more aggressive and will be streamlined. The only specifics he mentions are eliminating brochures. I have no issue with this, it is one example of smart use of resources (although the majority of this claim is left unexplained, and I would have liked more information).
In his closing remarks, Dr. S reminds us of our Presidents words to “begin with the end in mind.” The end, for Dr. S in this article, is “to increase residential population, provide competitive scholarships, and strengthen our academic programs.” I have shown in this article that I do not believe the new standards accomplish this goal. But what is more importantly, we should focus less on academics, and more on what Malone claims is its continuing commitment: Christ's Kingdom First.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Envy
In church this Sunday, a woman got up and "taught" on Proverbs 14:30. Now, those who know me know already that I have an issue with this, but that is neither my primary complaint nor the reason I decided to put "taught" between quotation marks. What I have an issue with is, in fact, not even primarily a doctrinal issue (for once). It was the sheer incompetence of a woman who showed no depth of understanding of those things about which she presumed to tell others.
The text of Proverbs 14:30, as she used it, is:
The text of Proverbs 14:30, as she used it, is:
A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.
(This was from the King James Version.)
Now, first of all, she did a horrible job of talking about this verse, because she was constantly repeating herself and falling back on saying "hallelujah" at what seemed to be the points where she either lost her place or couldn't think of what to say next. It is certainly a good thing to praise God, but it felt more like she was using "hallelujah" as a place-holder than an expression of worship. But even beyond this, was when she brought up bullies.
I was bullied as a child. It has left me with a profound disgust for bullies. If I call someone a bully, I do not mean they are being less than kind, I mean I want them to die a slow, painful death, in the most humiliating manner possible, in front of everyone they hold dear. It is not a minor issue for me. And, like every child, I heard the simplistic response that "they're just jealous." And like every child who was bullied, and like most bullies, I realized the lie of this statement. The speaker made this very claim when talking about the pitfalls of envy, and even related her own experience of being picked on as a child, but admitted she didn't know what the bully in question was jealous of. Let me fill this in for you: not all bullies are jealous!
True, I had some kids pick on me for what may have been jealousy. But more often than not, it was a way to assert their dominance without any personal risk. By showing that they could put down someone, they were given popularity and with it, power. Very rarely did I offer anything of which they could be jealous. Some of them even got better grades than me. And I certainly didn't have more friends. Or try to take away their friends. I shrank! So you want to tell me that all bullies are jealous, you'd better have some really good proof. Don't simplify something that tortured someone for over a decade to one potential cause unless you are absolutely sure. And you are not absolutely sure.
Not my most meaningful post, but I needed to get that off my chest. I may have a few more depressing blogs in the future for more venting - sorry if this brings anyone down.
Now, first of all, she did a horrible job of talking about this verse, because she was constantly repeating herself and falling back on saying "hallelujah" at what seemed to be the points where she either lost her place or couldn't think of what to say next. It is certainly a good thing to praise God, but it felt more like she was using "hallelujah" as a place-holder than an expression of worship. But even beyond this, was when she brought up bullies.
I was bullied as a child. It has left me with a profound disgust for bullies. If I call someone a bully, I do not mean they are being less than kind, I mean I want them to die a slow, painful death, in the most humiliating manner possible, in front of everyone they hold dear. It is not a minor issue for me. And, like every child, I heard the simplistic response that "they're just jealous." And like every child who was bullied, and like most bullies, I realized the lie of this statement. The speaker made this very claim when talking about the pitfalls of envy, and even related her own experience of being picked on as a child, but admitted she didn't know what the bully in question was jealous of. Let me fill this in for you: not all bullies are jealous!
True, I had some kids pick on me for what may have been jealousy. But more often than not, it was a way to assert their dominance without any personal risk. By showing that they could put down someone, they were given popularity and with it, power. Very rarely did I offer anything of which they could be jealous. Some of them even got better grades than me. And I certainly didn't have more friends. Or try to take away their friends. I shrank! So you want to tell me that all bullies are jealous, you'd better have some really good proof. Don't simplify something that tortured someone for over a decade to one potential cause unless you are absolutely sure. And you are not absolutely sure.
Not my most meaningful post, but I needed to get that off my chest. I may have a few more depressing blogs in the future for more venting - sorry if this brings anyone down.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Enemies
This could be a lot better, but it was more or less a stream of consciousness. Ironically, this kept me from actually talking about the event that triggered this post.
I make a lot of enemies. As a Christian, I struggled with this fact for some time. I spent a lot of time trying not to have enemies - even to be friends with everyone. I was motivated partly out of a desire to be nice, and partly out of fear. I was bullied a good bit growing up, and have no desire to ever return to that miserable state. Worse yet, I may become one (I come too close for my own comfort with certain friends as it is, but that is a whole other topic).
I will skip over the various ways I tried to stop making enemies for the sake of brevity and interest. Suffice it to say, every attempt failed. A little while ago, I came to a realization that put my mind at ease. We are not commanded by God to have no enemies. We are called to love our enemies. I need not like everyone or even want to spend time with them. I need to love my enemies.
This drastically shifted my means of approaching life. For one thing, I no longer feel guilty or like something is wrong with me when I love someone the wrong way (or when they have that effect on me). I need keep two things in mind when I am among my enemies: I must treat them as I would a friend and neighbor, and I must strive to want this. Ultimately, I hope that I will love my enemies by nature - to truly love all of humanity. Right now, I stick with what is reachable: to manifest love towards those I would call enemies.
I may be blowing my own horn here at the moment, but I think I have better definitions of "friend" and "enemy" than the rest of the culture with which I interact. I do, sadly, call some people friends who I do not consider to be real friends. By cultural standards, they are: we hang out, share our thoughts, and even have fun together. But for me, that is not a friend. A friend involves love, trust, and connection. There are many people with whom I spend my time simply by coincidence - on my own, I would never contact them or seek them out. I would not confide in them anything beyond my surface thoughts, I feel no connection, except by geography, and I cannot say I love them in any meaningful way (though I still try, as with enemies, to love them as neighbors).
True friends, in my mind, are peers in every way. Someone you can respect, through differences in interest and ability alike. Someone who respects you in turn. Someone from whom, at least when you are alone together, you would not withhold any secrets of your own. Indeed, keeping any secrets between friends should pain both you and them, because you would want to share. And most importantly, there should be a real, unmistakable connection, such that you could not stop being friends if you wanted to.
Enemies are opposed to these in some ways, but very similar in others. The most notable similarity is that you have no choice - this person who is your enemy will be your enemy whether you like it or not. The greatest difference is trust - you will not want to share anything with this person, and may resent them when they try to earn a share of anything in which you are invested. That is why it is so great a challenge to love your enemies. You must pain yourself, give of yourself to the one you feel certain must hurt you. And you must accept it when he does, and trust him again. This does not mean you must actually help him hurt you or those you care about, but we, as Christians cannot let fear of being hurt stop us. We must love those who may hate us, and do our best to endure the repercussions.
I make a lot of enemies. As a Christian, I struggled with this fact for some time. I spent a lot of time trying not to have enemies - even to be friends with everyone. I was motivated partly out of a desire to be nice, and partly out of fear. I was bullied a good bit growing up, and have no desire to ever return to that miserable state. Worse yet, I may become one (I come too close for my own comfort with certain friends as it is, but that is a whole other topic).
I will skip over the various ways I tried to stop making enemies for the sake of brevity and interest. Suffice it to say, every attempt failed. A little while ago, I came to a realization that put my mind at ease. We are not commanded by God to have no enemies. We are called to love our enemies. I need not like everyone or even want to spend time with them. I need to love my enemies.
This drastically shifted my means of approaching life. For one thing, I no longer feel guilty or like something is wrong with me when I love someone the wrong way (or when they have that effect on me). I need keep two things in mind when I am among my enemies: I must treat them as I would a friend and neighbor, and I must strive to want this. Ultimately, I hope that I will love my enemies by nature - to truly love all of humanity. Right now, I stick with what is reachable: to manifest love towards those I would call enemies.
I may be blowing my own horn here at the moment, but I think I have better definitions of "friend" and "enemy" than the rest of the culture with which I interact. I do, sadly, call some people friends who I do not consider to be real friends. By cultural standards, they are: we hang out, share our thoughts, and even have fun together. But for me, that is not a friend. A friend involves love, trust, and connection. There are many people with whom I spend my time simply by coincidence - on my own, I would never contact them or seek them out. I would not confide in them anything beyond my surface thoughts, I feel no connection, except by geography, and I cannot say I love them in any meaningful way (though I still try, as with enemies, to love them as neighbors).
True friends, in my mind, are peers in every way. Someone you can respect, through differences in interest and ability alike. Someone who respects you in turn. Someone from whom, at least when you are alone together, you would not withhold any secrets of your own. Indeed, keeping any secrets between friends should pain both you and them, because you would want to share. And most importantly, there should be a real, unmistakable connection, such that you could not stop being friends if you wanted to.
Enemies are opposed to these in some ways, but very similar in others. The most notable similarity is that you have no choice - this person who is your enemy will be your enemy whether you like it or not. The greatest difference is trust - you will not want to share anything with this person, and may resent them when they try to earn a share of anything in which you are invested. That is why it is so great a challenge to love your enemies. You must pain yourself, give of yourself to the one you feel certain must hurt you. And you must accept it when he does, and trust him again. This does not mean you must actually help him hurt you or those you care about, but we, as Christians cannot let fear of being hurt stop us. We must love those who may hate us, and do our best to endure the repercussions.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Swearing
***Warning: This post is not only about swearing, but includes "inappropriate" language***
Okay, I'll admit it: I swear too much. Growing up, I didn't swear. And I don't mean I rarely swore, I mean that I never intentionally swore before I came to college. My freshman year, I had a roommate with a somewhat foul mouth who also liked to watch comedy central. Even more than public schooling, this whittled away at my resolve to keep my speech clean. So, despite the fact that in college I could be fined for swearing, I began my excursion into the vulgar my freshman year.
I will take a moment here to make a clarification. There is "swearing," "cursing," and "cussing." Outside this paragraph, unless otherwise specified, I am using the terms of "swearing" and "cursing" to refer to "cussing," that is, vulgar language. However, in actuality, swearing refers to taking oaths, and cursing refers to putting a curse on someone. Both of these are explicitly condemned in the Bible. Many misinterpretations of scripture come from people applying the "cussing" definition to swearing and/or cursing. I hate the equivocation, and would not use these words for this purpose, except that I hate the word "cussing" even more, and I am too impatient to say "vulgar language" in every instance.
My language freshman year was therefore worse than it had been in my entire life, but still fairly tame. The words left a strange taste in my mouth. It was unusual to me to think that I was using these words. On the whole, I kept it under wraps, in part because I was so new to the idea, and in part because few of my friends swore. However, my friend group shifted sophomore year, and I developed a mouth like a sailor, which I have kept to the present date. I have tempered my language in the past school year, and I still hold my tongue around authority figures (more out of respect for their authority than for fear of reprisal).
***Mature language begins below this line***
All of this, I tell you so that I can tell you what I think of swearing in general. I, like many people, rank 'bad words' in a hierarchy. I have a very different ranking from most, however. I have no idea why "shit" cannot be said on television, for example. I consider it simultaneous among the least severe, and least useful. Also ranked among the minor curse words for me are the two "b"s. The second tier for me includes "fuck," as well as any of the more vulgar references to reproductive anatomy (the "c"s, as it were). Taking the Lord's Name constitutes the top tier - I will not even here write them. Top of the top tier is g--d--- (I hate when people do that with spelling, but I know of no other way without breaking my own requirements). "Piss," which some people count as a curse word, I do not, putting it rather on par with "crap." They aren't elevated language, but neither are they truly swearing.
This leaves what I refer to as "the floaters": Hell and Damn. When I think about them, I consider them practically top tier, insofar as they have theological implications. However, when I swear myself, I use them with bottom tier frequency. What I've ultimately concluded is that to use them literally as curses is inappropriate on the grounds of the Biblical command not to curse (which refers to casting curses, not just vulgar language). Using them as non-curse swearing is acceptable however. Thus "what the hell?" and "dammit" are acceptable, while "go to hell" and "damn you" are not.
Why do I not just say "no swearing at all"? Simple: I do not believe there is any reason for such an assertion. The Bible itself contains words and phrases which were culturally as inappropriate as what we today consider inappropriate. There are verses about letting no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but if this were genuinely a sinful act, then the Bible would not have used such culturally sensitive language. Thus, either that is a piece of advice not bearing the weight of a command or it has some other meaning. I confess I have not looked closely into it. Perhaps someday I will and I will stop swearing altogether. I will say that those who can say what they want without swearing are better off than those of us who swear, and I am working to become such a person. But I am not there, and I do not think it is a moral so much as intellectual and practical pursuit to strive to reach that point.
Okay, I'll admit it: I swear too much. Growing up, I didn't swear. And I don't mean I rarely swore, I mean that I never intentionally swore before I came to college. My freshman year, I had a roommate with a somewhat foul mouth who also liked to watch comedy central. Even more than public schooling, this whittled away at my resolve to keep my speech clean. So, despite the fact that in college I could be fined for swearing, I began my excursion into the vulgar my freshman year.
I will take a moment here to make a clarification. There is "swearing," "cursing," and "cussing." Outside this paragraph, unless otherwise specified, I am using the terms of "swearing" and "cursing" to refer to "cussing," that is, vulgar language. However, in actuality, swearing refers to taking oaths, and cursing refers to putting a curse on someone. Both of these are explicitly condemned in the Bible. Many misinterpretations of scripture come from people applying the "cussing" definition to swearing and/or cursing. I hate the equivocation, and would not use these words for this purpose, except that I hate the word "cussing" even more, and I am too impatient to say "vulgar language" in every instance.
My language freshman year was therefore worse than it had been in my entire life, but still fairly tame. The words left a strange taste in my mouth. It was unusual to me to think that I was using these words. On the whole, I kept it under wraps, in part because I was so new to the idea, and in part because few of my friends swore. However, my friend group shifted sophomore year, and I developed a mouth like a sailor, which I have kept to the present date. I have tempered my language in the past school year, and I still hold my tongue around authority figures (more out of respect for their authority than for fear of reprisal).
***Mature language begins below this line***
All of this, I tell you so that I can tell you what I think of swearing in general. I, like many people, rank 'bad words' in a hierarchy. I have a very different ranking from most, however. I have no idea why "shit" cannot be said on television, for example. I consider it simultaneous among the least severe, and least useful. Also ranked among the minor curse words for me are the two "b"s. The second tier for me includes "fuck," as well as any of the more vulgar references to reproductive anatomy (the "c"s, as it were). Taking the Lord's Name constitutes the top tier - I will not even here write them. Top of the top tier is g--d--- (I hate when people do that with spelling, but I know of no other way without breaking my own requirements). "Piss," which some people count as a curse word, I do not, putting it rather on par with "crap." They aren't elevated language, but neither are they truly swearing.
This leaves what I refer to as "the floaters": Hell and Damn. When I think about them, I consider them practically top tier, insofar as they have theological implications. However, when I swear myself, I use them with bottom tier frequency. What I've ultimately concluded is that to use them literally as curses is inappropriate on the grounds of the Biblical command not to curse (which refers to casting curses, not just vulgar language). Using them as non-curse swearing is acceptable however. Thus "what the hell?" and "dammit" are acceptable, while "go to hell" and "damn you" are not.
Why do I not just say "no swearing at all"? Simple: I do not believe there is any reason for such an assertion. The Bible itself contains words and phrases which were culturally as inappropriate as what we today consider inappropriate. There are verses about letting no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but if this were genuinely a sinful act, then the Bible would not have used such culturally sensitive language. Thus, either that is a piece of advice not bearing the weight of a command or it has some other meaning. I confess I have not looked closely into it. Perhaps someday I will and I will stop swearing altogether. I will say that those who can say what they want without swearing are better off than those of us who swear, and I am working to become such a person. But I am not there, and I do not think it is a moral so much as intellectual and practical pursuit to strive to reach that point.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Heir of a Worldview
Do we inherit our views? Are we cursed to live as a sum of those individual views shared with us by those we come to know? Or is there some chance of something more? There are those who tell us that we would even inherit those views which we come upon on our own by means of experience: they become ours by mere endowment. This view disgusts me in the same way that I imagine most people must be revolted by the idea of living without free will - it is not that I have any evidence against it, I simply find the idea abhorrent (As a side note, I do not have this issue with lacking free will: I believe we have it, but would be totally fine if we did not).
The problem is, the idea of inheritance to me implies that it belongs rightly to someone other than myself. For all my love of heritage and legacy, I could not bear to think I had nothing but these. Rather, I would say that we sometimes (I would not dare say how often) do not simply pick up the ideas of those around us. Instead, we observe many ideas, decide on the one that seems truest, and claim it for ourselves. We might even need to wrestle the idea into submission, making them surrender to our other views and adapt as necessary. In this way, cannot our views be truly our own?
The problem is, the idea of inheritance to me implies that it belongs rightly to someone other than myself. For all my love of heritage and legacy, I could not bear to think I had nothing but these. Rather, I would say that we sometimes (I would not dare say how often) do not simply pick up the ideas of those around us. Instead, we observe many ideas, decide on the one that seems truest, and claim it for ourselves. We might even need to wrestle the idea into submission, making them surrender to our other views and adapt as necessary. In this way, cannot our views be truly our own?
Friday, January 30, 2009
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
Who knows you better, you or your friends?
I've been thinking about this a good bit lately. Not too long ago, I had a conversation with two friends who seem to have a much higher view of me than I have of myself. Another friend has constantly been telling me I appraise myself wrongly (not just in one respect - pretty much every time I describe myself, he tells me that no, I'm another way).
The question was first: do my friends know me better than I know myself? But this question is too self-absorbed, too narrow, and hardly inspires genuine thought. So I widened it. For people in general (including you, dear reader) who knows someone better, the person himself, or his friends? I'd like to believe I know myself better, but acknowledge there are at least some ways in which I know virtually nothing about myself that others seem to understand quite well.
The question then becomes: if someone else knows you better than yourself, how do you come to understand yourself as well as they do?
I've been thinking about this a good bit lately. Not too long ago, I had a conversation with two friends who seem to have a much higher view of me than I have of myself. Another friend has constantly been telling me I appraise myself wrongly (not just in one respect - pretty much every time I describe myself, he tells me that no, I'm another way).
The question was first: do my friends know me better than I know myself? But this question is too self-absorbed, too narrow, and hardly inspires genuine thought. So I widened it. For people in general (including you, dear reader) who knows someone better, the person himself, or his friends? I'd like to believe I know myself better, but acknowledge there are at least some ways in which I know virtually nothing about myself that others seem to understand quite well.
The question then becomes: if someone else knows you better than yourself, how do you come to understand yourself as well as they do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)