1  

Class Notes for GEN ED 2020 

 

Plato:  The Republic 

1/26/09: 

1. Situating Plato historically/philosophically 

• Conflict with Sophists 

• Conflict with Heraclitus 

• Conflict with Protagoras 2. Contradictions associated with skepticism/relativism/subjectivism 

• Examples of Socratic Dialogues 

• Principle of Self‐Identity 3. Six Qualities of the Platonic Forms 4. Politics/Rhetoric/Demagoguery 

• Rational vs. Irrational:  Manipulation of Flickering Shadows to get us to “feel” things rather than “think” things. 

• How is anything “real”?  

1/29/09:  1. Justice 

• Cephalus’ Definition:  “telling the truth, returning what you receive.”(p. 5) o Conflict:  Old age vs. youth 

• Polemarchus’ Definition:  “giving each his due” o What’s wrong with this definition? 

• Thrasymachus’ Definition:  “justice is what is in the interest of the stronger” o Conflict:  Appearance vs. Reality o Politics/Demagoguery o Reductio ad Absurdum o Transvaluation of Values 

• Rational vs. Irrational:  justice as excellence of the soul, proper use of reason 

• Justice as “Social Contract”?:  Ring of Gyges (p. 34); whether injustice is more profitable than justice from a worldly perspective 

• Justice as mediating conflict within the soul:  appetitive, spirited, rational 

• Justice as mediating conflict outside the soul (state):  producers, guardians, rulers (philosopher kings) 

• Definition of justice (new):  p 120  2/2 – 2/4/09 

2  

o Conflict:  Useful vs. useless – the just life as that which can bring about a resolution to this conflict.  The liberal arts as “useless” 

o Conflict:  Innate idea or from upbringing (environment)? o Two proofs for the souls immortality (conflict:  temporal life vs. eternal life) based on 

the soul’s ability to understand the spiritual concepts associated with innate ideas (theory of recollection of ideas) and based upon the uncompounded nature of a spiritual soul. 

Book 6 

• Philosopher kings o 7 qualities of the philosopher king 

• Divisions of knowledge  o Noesis, dianoia, eikasia, pistis 

• Other conflicts: o world of being vs. world of becoming o  sense knowledge vs. intellectual knowledge;  o (conflict:  true knowledge vs. perception/opinion) (p. 183) o (conflict:  true knowledge vs. belief) (p. 183) o (conflict:  true knowledge vs. belief plus logos) (p. 183) o Spiritual soul vs. material body o Cosmology:  material world vs. spiritual world of forms 

Book 7 

• Allegory of the cave o Conflict:  education vs. ignorance o Light vs. darkness o Knowledge vs. doxa (opinion) 

• Dialectic:  come to know the form of the Good (and other ideal essences) 

Book 8 

• Conflicting forms of governments:  timocracy/aristocracy vs. oligarchy vs. democracy vs. tyranny  

Aristotle:  The Nicomachean Ethics 2/5/09 

 

• Aristotle:  Idea of substance as a resolution to the various conflicts in Plato – one substance with two metaphysical principles (form and matter) 

o world of being vs. world of becoming o  sense knowledge vs. intellectual knowledge;  o (conflict:  true knowledge vs. perception/opinion) (p. 183) 

3  

o (conflict:  true knowledge vs. belief) (p. 183) o (conflict:  true knowledge vs. belief plus logos) (p. 183) o Spiritual soul vs. material body o Cosmology:  material world vs. spiritual world of forms o Rational vs. irrational 

Book I:  Nicomachean Ethics 

• The “Good” as that which “all things aim for” 

• The Highest Good as “final, self‐sufficient, and free” 

• The Happy Life 

Book II:  Virtue 

• As arête (excellence, strength, actualizing potentials) 

• As hexis (possession, second nature) 

• As a “median” between 2 negative extremes (excess vs. deficiency) 

• As an “extreme” itself (p. 50) 

• Whether emotions are virtues (p. 40, 41) 

• Whether all actions have a “median” (p. 44) 

Book V:  Justice 

• Definition: p. 111, 114 

• Proportion:  “to each according to his deserts” p. 114 

• As the highest virtue, the culmination of all virtue 

• Whether justice is blind (p. 121) 

• Judge as the embodiment of justice – restoring equilibrium (p. 121) 

• Worst evil is injustice:  malice vs. weakness (rumor mongering vs. adultery) 

Book VII:  Forms of Government 

• Society is good to the extent men are just, good, lovable (p. 231) 

• Perversion of kingship is tyranny, but monarchy affords the opportunity for a truly excellent society, while democracy at best, affords mediocrity (p. 234). 

 

Frank Miller/Zack Snyder:  300 

(2/09/09) 

Spartans:  only identity is that of the “warrior” 

• We march for “glory’s sake, for honor’s sake” 

4  

• Leonidas’ regret:  “. . . so few to sacrifice” 

• No room for softness/weakness/emotions:  “only the hard, only the strong” (vs. Aristotle:  emotions can be part of reasonable virtue) 

• We do what we were trained to do, born to do – no prisoners, no mercy (is this reasonable?) 

• Unity (as single unit) is their source of strength 

Spartans:  as the “one hope for reason and justice” 

• Leonidas wants reason to decide fate of Sparta (vs. wise men who want the oracle to decide) 

• Oracle is from the “age of darkness” 

• “Every Greek knows what is right . . . only Spartans choose to do it.” 

• The Spartans respect/honor Leonidas, and he serves among them 

• Are the Spartans the only “free men” as they claim, or are they enslaved to their warrior ideology? 

• Leonidas:  hubris makes a fool of any man – easy to taunt, to trick (reason) 

• Even Leonidas hopes for “more than glory” 

• Leonidas:  “light a fire that will burn in the hearts of free men for centuries”; “we do not sacrifice the rule of law to the whim of men” (that was the “old way”) 

• Leonidas:  wants a New Age of “great deeds,” an “Age of Reason, Justice, Law” 

• Leonidas:  like the philosopher king, no fear of death, he “stares death in the eye and laughs.” 

• Leonidas:  “Here, by Spartan law, we lie” (allegiance to reason, to a law) 

• Spartans:  “We rescue Greeks from the old, dark way – usher in a brighter future.” o Critique:  but war is always depicted visually as being “in the dark.” o Critique:  is it irrational to send 300 men against 1 million? o Critique:  is it irrational to kill unfit children? o Critique:  Does the Spartan definition of freedom provide real freedom? 

Persians: as the “Beast”; uncivilized barbarians 

• View leader as the “God‐king”; Greeks fear my “divine power” while they pride in their logic 

• “irrational beasts,” trying to snuff out the “world’s one hope for reason and justice” 

• Tyranny of Persia:  “pledged to crush the republics of Greece, to make slaves of the world’s only free men.” 

• Xerxes promises hunchback every pleasure the Greeks false gods have denied him. 

• Xerxes steps upon his own people and he is inflicted with hubris (easy to taunt, easy to trick).  Does he only want justice for himself? 

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 

 (2/10/09 – 02/11/09) 

Introduction to Aquinas 

5  

• A realistic theory of cognition and ethics (Epistemological and Ethical Realism)  

1. Cognition reaches the object 

2. Willing and action are determined by knowledge of the real.  The moral “good” presupposes what is epistemologically “true.” 

• Conflict:  appearance vs. reality 

o Knowledge as “Transcendence” (Aquinas’s realistic theory of knowledge) 

The knower is not limited to the outer appearances of things, of how things “appear.”  When the knower knows, she is capable of self‐transcendence in knowing the form of beings outside herself.  Knowing means to be the other being‐ spiritual (intellectual) knowledge is the most intimate relationship between two beings. 

• Conflict:  Virtue vs. Nature? 

o Virtues (e.g., the virtue of Justice) enable us to be able to follow in the proper manner our natural inclinations which belong to the natural law. For Aquinas, the goal of ethics is to attain the possession of the “greatest good.”  Ethics is a “means” to this “end.” 

o Virtues enable us to follow our natural inclinations; we are not crushing our human nature, what we are inclined to do naturally. The goal is to get to the point where “what one wants to do is identical to “what one ought to do.”  

One of these natural inclinations is the inclination of human nature to love something other than the self more than the self itself. 

Conflict:  The Individual vs. the Enemy.  Is it a more meritorious action if it is easy for us to love our enemy, or is it more meritorious if it is hard for us to love our enemy (in both cases, the enemy is loved)? 

• Conflict:  The natural law vs. the eternal law.  The “maximalist” view. 

• Conflict:  Faith vs. Reason?  Aquinas as theologian and logician. 

• Conflict:  “Is” vs. “Ought” 

o 10 Stages of moral action  

• Conflict:  Justice vs. Injustice  

o What is Justice?  Summa Theologiae, II‐II, Question 58, articles 1‐12.  

6  

1428 Definition:  “Perpetual and constant will to render to each his right.”  This perpetual will implies an internal desire which can only be there by force of 

habit.  1428:  Justice “makes a man capable of doing what is just and of being just in 

action and intention.” (Aristotle)  1429:  Virtue is that which is done “knowingly, by choice, immovably”  1430:  implies “equality” (which, by necessity, must extend to the other)  1430:  “coordination of the parts of  the soul” (cf. Plato, Book 4, Republic)  1430:  Justice a virtue?  Yes,  “because it makes man himself good” (virtue as a 

“having,” a “possession,” a hexis, cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 2).  1430:  Justice is a virtue because, once the habit is required, it becomes easy, 

and it is “done spontaneously and readily.”  1431:  “All appetite is subject to reason” and this includes the rational appetite, 

and the sensitive appetite (the sensitive appetite is divided into the irascible and the concupiscible) 

1431:  Justice is every virtue, the summation of all virtue (it implies temperance, prudence, and fortitude). 

1433:  Legal Justice (General Justice) – directs man to the common good.  Particular Justice “directs man in relations to other individuals.” 

1434:  Reason “rectifies not only internal/external passions, but also external actions.” 

1435:  Justice is not about the passions (for temperance and courage are the “mean in regard to the passions”.  Justice has to do with external operations. 

1436:  Justice is to give each his due:  “Each man’s own is that which is due to him according to equality of proportion.” 

1436:  Whether justice is the highest virtue.  In terms of legal justice, “the common good transcends the individual good.”  Justice is “more glorious than the evening or morning star.” (cf. Aristotle, Book 5) 

1437:  Particular Justice is the highest individual virtue because, in terms of the subject, it concerns the more excellent part of the soul (reason), and, terms of the object, it is directed toward the other.  

o What is Injustice (Question 59, articles 1‐6)  

1437:  Injustice is a vice because first, there is an inequality vs. the common good, and secondly, because there is an inequality between one person and another. 

1438:  If injustice is done accidentally, or if it not a result of habit, it is not an unjust action. 

1439:  “No person can do an injustice except voluntarily, nor suffer (passion) an injustice except involuntarily.” 

7  

1440:  Is injustice a mortal sin?  Yes, in its genus, because injustice is contrary to charity, and it is an injury inflicted upon another person 

o On the question of Murder (Question 64, articles 6‐7)  

1464 (Article 6) Whether it is lawful to kill the innocent.  In relation to oneself, it is unlawful to kill any person.  In relation to the “common good,” the slaying of a sinner can be lawful. 

1465 (A. 7) Whether it is lawful to kill in self‐defense.  Moral acts depend upon intention (an intention to save one’s life, for example), but only force which is needed should be used.  Even soldiers sin if they are moved by private animosity.  (The “principle of double effect” is applicable here)  

o On the question of Backbiting (Question 73, Articles 1‐4)  

1497:  Injury can be done to another in two ways (if the backbiter intends to be believed), publicly or secretly. 

1498:   Whether backbiting is a mortal sin.  Yes, because it is a “grave sin to blacken one’s name,” if intended.  This, however, could be lighthearted and without sufficient reflection.  In any case, we are bound to restore one’s good name. 

1499 (article 3):  Whether backbiting is the gravest of all sins.  There are 3 goods of the human person, the goods of soul, body, and external things.  Therefore, murder is the greatest sin, adultery is second, but backbiting is worse than theft.  If adultery is done through weakness (when is it not?), then it is less serious. 

1500 (article 4):  Whether the listener sins grievously.  Yes, if she consents by “inducing another” (letting the backbiter know that the sin is pleasing) through participation, and also if the listener does not object to the backbiting out of fear of human respect. 

 

Josef Pieper, The Four Cardinal Virtues 

02/12/09 

 

44 Justice:  A definition (Aquinas’) 

o Definition ‐ Justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due with constant and perpetual will. It is not a facade you have to desire it. 

o 46 Whether creation is an act of Justice 

8  

The question is whether God’s creation of our human nature is an act of justice on God’s part.  Are we owed existence?  No.  Why not?  The human person does not exist yes, therefore it cannot be an act of justice ‐‐ it is essentially a gift, the gift of personal existence. 

Personal Existence‐ it marks you out as an existent with a destiny.  Someone who has control of his/her destiny 

Conflict and Resolution:  Natural Theology as a possible resolution to the tension between faith and reason. 

• Anselm’s “ontological argument for God’s existence. 

• Aquinas’ cosmological argument for God’s existence. 

46 – 51 Origin of Human Rights (Creation was not an act of justice, but by virtue of being given existence, something is owed to us by other persons).  

• Rights come before justice (45) 

• Human rights as intrinsic, not based upon “productivity” 

Proofs for Human Spirituality 

• Basis of our personhood 1. Self Mastery 2. Self‐ Determination 3. Self‐Reflection 4. Understanding of Universal Concepts 

• Difference between being and having.  Difference between being and doing. 

• Spirituality implies immortality  

65 The rank of justice ‐ it ranks the highest, because you are perfecting your relationships with others.  Why justice is higher than the other virtues (p 66). 

• Justice relates to the spiritual core, which is free. The good of reason shines more brightly on justice, and justice is closer to reason.  Every moral evil is an act against justice, because you are dragging God through your evil actions. 

 

Sigrid Undset, Kristin Lavransdatter, I:  The Wreath 

2.16.09 

Notes on Sigrid Undset: 

9  

Sigrid Undset (1882‐1949)  

born in Denmark, but family moved to Oslo, Norway … landscape imagery 

eldest daughter of a Norwegian father (archeologist) and a Danish mother (secretary/illustrator) 

    relics and stories (e.g. fairy tales, myths, ballads) of times past in Norway 

father died at age 40 … later “incarnated” in character Lavrans Bjorgulfson 

education: free tuition at a school run by Ragna Nielsen (women’s rights) 

at age 17, worked at the Wisbech Electrical Company (9‐hr days, 30 kroner/mo, 10 years) 

writing in spare time:  

in a letter to pen‐pal in Sweden Andrea Hedberg: “Sometimes I want so much to write a book … I’ve started a few times, but nothing comes of it, and I burn it at once” (xiii the tome) 

“Don’t attempt any more historical novels.  You have no talent for it.  But you might try writing something modern. You never know.” (Gyllendal Publishing Company in Copenhagen, Peter Nansen) 

2 years later to pen‐pal: “But it’s an artist that I want to be, a woman artist, and not a pen‐wielding lady. … Furthermore, marriage makes most women stupid, or they dilute their demands on life, on their husband, and on themselves so much that they can scarcely be counted as human, or they become uncomprehending, vulgar, coarse, or unhappy.  Yes, my dear Dea, I certainly hope you will take great joy and comfort from this edifying epistle.  I’m keeping one consolation for my own use: I will! I will hold my head high, I will not buckle under.  I will not commit suicide—will not waste my talents.  If I have any, I will also find them and use them.  I will be whatever I can be” (xiv the tome)   “I will!” resonates with Aquinas’s “Will it” but also notions of “use” via Aristotle and Plato 

first novel about infidelity, Fru Marta Oulie (1906), intercession of Gunnar Heiberg, to H. Ashehoug & Co  

Mother’s thoughts: “You as a writer must always look up to Blicher [Danish writer Steen Steensen Blicher] as your mentor, be as incorruptibly honest as he is, look life fearlessly in the eye, see it as it is, and truthfully tell what you see” (xii) 

1909 … affair with Anders Castus Svarstad, marriedNorwegian painter  

1912 … married Svarstad for 10 years with financial and psychological challenges (two artists, care of household under Undset, and difficult child‐rearing esp of youngest daughter) 

1924 … annulment and conversion to Catholicism  

Borghild Krane’s thoughts (as Undset’s biographer): “Perhaps this marriage illustrates the difficulties that arise when two people marry who both have such a strong and imperative need for artistic 

10  

development that for each of them it becomes an activity so essential to life that it cannot be stopped – even if it takes them away from each other” (xiii) 

The Wreath (1920), The Wife (1921), The Cross (1922)   Norwegian Iliad (Homer) 

success: in sales, in translations, honors, and readerships  

The Master of Hestviken (1925‐1927) … tetralogy also set in Medieval Norway  

1928 … Novel Prize for Literature at age 46, the third woman honored with prize  

156,000 kroner … all of it given away:  

scholarship fund for Norwegian Writers Union  

establishment of two foundations:  

to Norwegian families with mentally retarded children to provide home care (The Maren Charlotte Undset Svarstad Grant) 

to provide financial aid to needy Catholic children in Norway who wanted to attend parochial schools (xvii) 

1939 … lost mother and daughter 

1940 … Germans [Nazism] to Norway   Sweden, Russia, Siberia, Japan, and the U.S.  

1945 … return to Lillehammer and destruction of family home 

1947 … awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Olav (first woman of nonroyal blood)  

1949 … died 

About Kristin Lavransdatter: 

Early 14th‐Century Norway (during Medieval Ages) … a time of transition 

  “the Church and Crown solidifying power” (xiv) … Undset: freedom to create characters 

Norway:  

firmer establishment of Catholicism around the 10th‐Century 

pop. < 500,000 … about half believed to have died during Black Death  

rural setting … still quite rural nowadays 

  religious rituals and obligations < ‐‐ > family and extended community 

    “exile” … to lose approval of the Church and your kinsmen (xiv) … akin to Oedipus 

11  

“superbia” or pride (hubris): “setting oneself up as the arbiter of things human and divine, or, to express it another way, loving oneself more than God” (xv via scholar Marlene Ciklamini) 

akin to tragic flaw, hamartia, but more than this   Moral Order  

  notion of allegory … layers of stories to reflect back onto one another … resolution here 

    history and literature (xviii)   to depict life and reality “the way they are” (xx) 

pastoral settings vs. modern times (problem of “progress”) 

    marriage as one form of a social contract  

    good vs. fallen “woman” 

      19th‐century “fallen” woman would meet her demise 

      20‐century modern woman would be celebrated and liberated 

character, Kristin Lavransdatter   “the middle ground”   

“Throughout all of the tribulations of her life, Kristin winds up being not merely a survivor but an explorer: her hardy soul is on a pilgrimage.”  

rites of passage:  birth, *maturation/socialization, marriage/procreation, death 

*maturation and socialization   a coming‐of‐age tale of the maiden Kristin Lavransdatter 

How does conflict operate in a story?   

What are the different kinds of conflict that a character experiences? 

How are those conflicts ultimately resolved?    

Chapter 1: 

3  loose genealogy of marriage and property   Ragnfrid in role of wife and mother  

  introduction of Kristin 

4  Lavrans’s strong reputation tied to his physical description   husband in marriage 

5  industry for both of these “good” people 

  journey for Kristin at age 7 … echoes on page 6 through description of village  

*close reading of “On the hill. … during the night”   foreshadowing of knight figure 

9   “May God grant you joy from her, Lavrans Bjorgulfson!” … foreshadowing 

12  

10  Lavrans’s cross and more physical description to confirm nature 

  relationship with the “poor folks” 

  connection to horse   extension of masculinity  

11  forest imagery and fairy‐tale component of boundary‐crossing 

*12  close reading of “Kristin had thought. … the timbers of the beacon”  unknown/known 

15  ale: good vs. bad use 

17  Kristin’s reflection of self: child playing at being grown‐up   “”She bent over the water and saw her own dark image rise up from the depths and become clearer as it came closer” 

eponymous moment: “Then the woman raised her hand and showed her a wreath of golden flowers and beckoned to her with it” … memory of woman 22 

19  pagan vs. Christian beliefs 

Chapter 2: 

21  land issue with Lavrans and Skog (his ancestral home) 

22  “a new cloak” … a new journey, another step in her socialization process (23‐24) 

26   religiosity in iconography: what is emphasized?  suffering and judgment (?) of Divine and material fathers, God and Lavrans 

31  Brother Edvin and stained glass experience … 32 

33  stories of Norwegian saints, particularly Nikulaus 

34  iconography of Virgin Mary and Saints Sunniva and Kristina   story as mixture of Christian and pagan 

**Key Quotation & Key Conflict within Kristin … Free‐write on this passage?  

“There is no one, Kristin, who does not love and fear God.  But it’s because our hearts are divided between love for God and fear of the Devil, and love for this world and this flesh, that we are miserable I life and death.  For if a man knew no yearning for God and God’s being, then he would thrive in Hell, and we alone would not understand that he had found his heart’s desire.  Then the fire would not burn him if he did not long for coolness, and he would not feel the pain of the serpent’s bit if he did not long for peace” (35) 

36  “I fear the Devil and love and desire this world like a fool.  But I hold on to the cross with all my strength . . . .”  

13  

36   [Conflict between deep God/father relationship and relationship with the world:  Is there a similarity between Kristen’s relationship with God and her relationship with her father?  There is a deep love there, but it is a transcendent love, one which she is willing to sacrifice, at times, for a more immediate (albeit, superficial) love.]:  “I fear the Devil and love and desire this world like a fool.  But I hold on to the cross with all my strength . . . .”  

Chapter 3: 

38   Ragnfrid with 2nd daughter, Ulvhild 

39  black ox incident … implied connection to Trond’s nature  

40  Ragnfrid and unworthiness (for crying out loud …) 

41   enter … Fru Aashild … pagan vs. Christian 

42  Ragnfrid turns to “witch” instead of prayer, Kristin notes 

44  response ofSira Eirik (priest) to Fru Aashild 

**Key Quotation & Key Discovery by Kristin … free‐write on this passage (?) 

“It fell like a terrible burden upon her when she realized for the first time that people could have such different opinions about so many things.  And not just evil, godless people disagreeing with good people, but also good people such as Brother Edvin and Sira Eirik—or her mother and father.  She suddenly realized that they too thought differently about many things” (45) 

45  [Conflict between appearance and reality, related to “scandal” (in the limited sense of the word):  Kristin seems to be scandalized by the disparity of opinions concerning God, religious issues, and the world.  Unlike the period of her childhood, when these questions “appeared” to have more black and white answers, her “coming of age” brings with it the possible cynicism associated with a more mature view of reality.  This cynicism, though, could be the end result of a viewpoint which is altered/truncated by a deep sensuality and a superficial approach to human relationships.]:  “It fell like a terrible burden upon her when she realized for the first time that people could have such different opinions about so many things.  And not just evil, godless people disagreeing with good people, but also good people such as Brother Edvin and Sira Eirik—or her mother and father.  She suddenly realized that they too thought differently about many things” (45) 

46  mother’s difference from other women 

  description of Fru Aashild … Kristin’s perception at odds with perception of village 

Chapter 4: 

49  Fru Aashild discusses her past with Kristin   “good days” and “grandest of days” (wry tone) 

14  

50  “No bargain is without some loss … And whoever wishes to give his life must take the risk and see what he can win” … amplification of Ragnfrid’s unworthiness to Lavrans 

51  blending of pagan remedies and Christian beliefs 

52  [Conflict between a “risk‐filled life” (a personality, e.g., Kristin, willing to take risks for the purpose of attaining those earthly moments – so close to your heart ‐‐ of love, beauty, worldly affirmation, etc.) and a more “careful/prudent life” (a personality, e.g., Simon, unwilling to risk the pains/thorns/briars associated with the ‐‐ at times, Illicit ‐‐ grasping for these temporal goods) – are these pockets of fleeting happiness worth the risk associated with them?]:  “It’s good when you don’t dare do something that doesn’t seem right… But it’s not so good if you think something isn’t right because you don’t dare to do it. … You’ve grown up a great deal this summer.  I wonder if you realize how lovely you’ve become”  

55  Sira Eirik and Fru Aashild as “good friends”  

57  Fru Aashild maneuvers and eases situation with Sira Sigurd   “the high seat” 

59  baudy stories among guys and Fru Aashild … suggestion of her past and double‐nature of so‐called “holy” men 

Chapter 5: 

61  passing of time, Kristin at age 15, assumed betrothal to Simon Andresson 

62  description of Simon … inventory of body, inventory of nature 

63  descriptions of Kristin and Ulvhild … different kind of inventory   marriage suitability 

65+  intensity of conversation between Arne and Kristin, societal distinction=”natural” distinction 

66  “She felt as if a weight suddenly fell upon her –Arne’s words and Arne’s head on her knees—it seemed to her as if a door were opening into a room with many dark corridors leading into more darkness.  Unhappy and heartsick, she hesitated, refusing to look inside”  

68  Kristin’s perception of her and Ulvhild’s plights  

70  Brother Edvin’s visit …  

73  Brother Edvin’s advice to Kristin: acknowledging God’s gifts rather than seeing lack 

Several Close Reading Exercises from “Jørungaard” in Sigrid Undset’s Kristin Lavransdatter: 

Read the THREE paragraphs beginning with “On the hill” and ending with “during the night” (6‐7).  What specific details strike you as potentially significant?  Why?  What do the details suggest about the setting?  What do the details suggest about the characters, as individuals and/or in relation to one another?   

15  

 

 

 

Read the TWO paragraphs beginning with “Kristin had thought” and ending with “the timbers of the beacon” (12).  Again, what details strike you as potentially significant?  Why?  What do the details suggest about the setting?  What do the details suggest about the characters, as individuals and/or in relation to one another?   

 

 

 

From Chapter Two, free‐write for THREE minutes on the following quotation, spoken by Brother Edvin, exploring the conflict he raises and connecting it to specific characters throughout this first section of the book:  

There is no one, Kristin, who does not love and fear God.  But it’s because our hearts are divided between love for God and fear of the Devil, and love for this world and this flesh, that we are miserable in life and death.  For if a man knew no yearning for God and God’s being, then he would thrive in Hell, and we alone would not understand that he had found his heart’s desire.  Then the fire would not burn him if he did not long for coolness, and he would not feel the pain of the serpent’s bite if he did not long for peace. (35) 

 

 

From Chapter Three, free‐write for THREE minutes on the following quotation, one of Kristin’s reflections, which highlights her internal conflict even as it also points towards external conflicts among people:  

It fell like a terrible burden upon her when she realized for the first time that people could have such different opinions about so many things.  And not just evil, godless people disagreeing with good people, but also good people such as Brother Edvin and Sira Eirik—or her mother and father.  She suddenly realized that they too thought differently about many things. (45) 

 

From Chapter Four, choose ONE quotation that resonates with you and free‐write for THREE minutes discussing the reasons why it does so.  

 

16  

From Chapter Five, choose ONE quotation that resonates with you and free‐write for THREE minutes discussing the reasons why it does so. 

 

236   [Conflict between deep God/father relationship and relationship with the world:  Is there a similarity between Kristen’s relationship with God and her relationship with her father?  There is a deep love there, but it is a transcendent love, one which she is willing to sacrifice, at times, for a more immediate (albeit, superficial) love]:  “Kristen,” pleaded Fru Aashild fearfully, “you won’t give up Erlend now, will you?  The two of you can’t be saved unless you save each other.”  “That’s hardly what a priest would say,” said Kristin, smiling coldly.  “But I know that I won’t let go of Erlend – even if I have to trample on my own father.” (Part 3, Chapter 3 – Lavrans Bjorgulfson) 

236  [Conflict between appearance and reality, related to “scandal” (in the limited sense of the word):  Kristin seems to be scandalized by the disparity of opinions concerning God, religious issues, and the world.  Unlike the period of her childhood, when these questions “appeared” to have more black and white answers, her “coming of age” brings with it the possible cynicism associated with a more mature view of reality.  This cynicism, though, could be the end result of a viewpoint which is altered/truncated by a deep sensuality and a superficial approach to human relationships.]:  “Kristen,” pleaded Fru Aashild fearfully, “you won’t give up Erlend now, will you?  The two of you can’t be saved unless you save each other.”  “That’s hardly what a priest would say,” said Kristin, smiling coldly.  “But I know that I won’t let go of Erlend – even if I have to trample on my own father.” (Part 3, Chapter 3 – Lavrans Bjorgulfson) 

240   [Conflict between deep God/father relationship and relationship with the world:  Is there a similarity between Kristen’s relationship with God and her relationship with her father?  There is a deep love there, but it is a transcendent love, one which she is willing to sacrifice, at times, for a more immediate (albeit, superficial) love]: 

• “But she would not give him up – not unless he released her from all promises.” 

• “And in the midst of her most bitter sorrow over her sister, Kristin realized with horror that her own soul had been led astray and was corrupted by sin.” 

• 241 “. . . if Ulvhild dies, how will I be able to endure facing my father without throwing myself down before him, to confess everything and to beg him to forgive me and to do with me what he will.” 

248   [Conflict between deep God/father relationship and relationship with the world:  Is there a similarity between Kristen’s relationship with God and her relationship with her father?  There is a deep love there, but it is a transcendent love, one which she is willing to sacrifice, at times, for a more immediate (albeit, superficial) love]: 

• “And Sir Baard said with a little smile, ‘It seems that your daughter has demonstrated that she is not lacking in will.  For two years she has stood by Erlend, in spite of your wishes.’” 

17  

02/23/09: 

Notes on Sigrid Undset’s Kristin Lavransdatter, Parts Two and Three  

Chapter Six  

75  Kristin employing Br. Edvin’s advice in seeing the good of and the gifts in others to Arne 

76  “I can’t do that. … I don’t think I could ever love a man so dearly that I would go against my parents’ will for his sake” … (famous last words) 

78  Enter Bentein … imagery reflects danger and behaviors as lasciviously NASTY 

Chapter Seven 

82  “Nothing could be as it had been before, now that a man had dared to do such a thing to her” … whole paragraph bespeaks her thoughts about her body and her soul in relation to man in general … conditioning as a good Christian woman 

85  Sira Eirik/Bentein & relations to and with women (KARMA) anticipates notion of retribution through family 

also, reflections on young men (“wildest boys”) who follow their desires through external actions  

88  Kristin’s “guilt” manifested in her fainting at Arne’s wake and Lavran’s defense of his daughter and later clarification from Kristin herself … model for confrontation after conflict ensues (91) 

90  Kristin’s burning of hand … fire imagery as reflective of passion 

92  Kristin’s reflections on goings‐on and observation that Simon’s actions of “taking charge” do not sit well with her (93) 

95  “So this time she traveled with her father and her betrothed, sitting in the sleigh, wrapped in furs” … journey motif 

Part II:  The Wreath   What IS the wreath?   

Chapter One: 

99  landscape imagery as in transition 

102  lessons that Kristin is supposed to learn as preparation for being “the lady of the manor” 

104  fire imagery away from passions but in honor to God viz. stories of Saints Theodora and Didymus 

Chapter Two: 

18  

110  shoes, shoes, and more shoes (women, commodification, and consumer identity … very modern) 

115   Enter … Erlend (cue violins) 

118  blushing as signs of attraction (medieval literary convention to speak of looks and bodily responses) 

120  “Father, she thought. … A new tenderness for Lavrans welled up inside her, as if there were a presentiment of maternal love and maternal sorrows in her for her father that night” … mirror of Lavrans’ later thoughts on Kristin before her nuptials to Erlend 

121  “It was as if the whole world had been good to her” … illusion/false ideology (?) 

Chapter Three (courtship of Erlend) 

126  (pages and pages of flirting) 

131  “He looked self‐conscious and embarrassed, and did it so clumsily that he scratched his fingers and drew blood” … anticipates their later encounter wherein they consummate their relationship 

132  song and subtext of marriage and travel to a different place for the “Danish Queen” 

135  “She slipped deeper and deeper into the darkness and the warmth and the joy at his chest”  

137  Erlend’s “bad boy” history 

139  “The Devil cannot have so much power over a man that I would ever cause you sorrow or harm, you who are the most precious thing in my life” … (cue: “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?”) 

Chapter Four (Kristin’s loss of virginity) 

145  the deed and words, words, words …  

149  “Kristin went back inside and crawled into bed again; then she let herself go and wept for the first time since she had become Erlend’s possession” (reticence throughout scene on K’s part … WHY?) 

Chapter Five (Kristin’s emotional ups and downs) 

152  “One day she would have to answer for what she had done, and she felt as if her heart had stopped in terror”  

155  “She continued to live in almost the same manner as before, but she would blush like a bride if anyone looked at her, whether she was sweeping the floor or walking alone to church”  

19  

158  visit with Br. Edvin: “You were lovely and pure, and yet you needed protection and help.  I thought I saw the whole church, with you inside it, lying in the hand of God”  

Chapter Six (Kristin following own path) 

163  Simon’s wooing  

165  “It gave her a fright—maybe she was a loose, vile woman. … She whimpered silently in fear at the inconstancy of her own heart and at the transitory nature of all things”  

170  Kristin and Erlend at Brynhild Fluga’s … “It won’t do much good for us to think about what’s right and what’s wrong” 

171  “Take me home to Husaby with you” … shift in “home” for Kristin 

Chapter Seven (Kristin breaking up with Simon) 

176  “And during those brief evening hours when she could be together with Erlend in the poor   women’s cowshed, she would throw herself into his arms to ardently as if she had paid with her soul to be his” 

179  Simon presenting self as “honorable” man vs. Erlend and aligns self with Lavrans (181) 

Chapter Eight (Kristin confronting Lavrans) 

184  possible misinterpretation of Fru Aashild’s words on good vs. grandest of days … no sense of costs (emotional and/or otherwise) 

190  Lavrans reception of Kristin’s news … nobility of character evidenced in reminding her of true gentleman’s behaviors (193) 

194  “But it weighed heavily on his mind that there was little he could do to prevent the child’s good reputation from being sullied behind his back.  And the worst thing was that he thought she might have brought this upon herself by her own thoughtlessness”  

Part III: Lavrans Bjorgulson  

Chapter One (the home you return to is not the same as the one you left) 

197  Kristin’s coming home in spring and stay during summer 

201  mother‐daughter talk about father‐daughter connection 

202  “Don’t let Lavrans get the idea that you have chosen a troublemaker or someone who doesn’t respect the peace and honor of women” 

Chapter Two (Lavrans and Ragnfrid’s marriage as foreboding of Kristin and Erlend’s nuptials) 

20  

206  Lavrans confronts Kristin about Erlend and his other family (age 18 key in young man’s life) 

210  Lavrans and Ragnfrid discuss their marriage and relationship 

  212   their desire during “fasting time” and the double‐meaning of regret 

Chapter Three (insult on top of injury) 

218  Fru Aashild and Erlend’s confrontation (228) 

221  Fru Aashild’s observations of Kristin 

229  Kristin and Erline’s confrontation 

232  Erline dies at Erlend’s hand 

236  “I’ve done many things that I thought I would never dare do because they were sins.  But I didn’t realize then that the consequence of sin is that you have to trample on other people” 

“Kristin … you won’t give up Erlend now, will you? The two of you can’t be saved unless you save each other”  

*MUTUAL NATURE OF OUR INTERACTIONS (NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE) … sense of communal responsibility 

237  “The sleigh dipped down and rose up over the drifts.  It vanished in a hollow, to appear farther down on a white meadow.  But then the men passed into the shadow of a slope and disappeared for good”  

Chapter Four (winter frost and spring deferred) 

240  “But Kristin knew in her heart that in some way she had changed—if not her decision, then her outlook.  She had received word of the progress of that ill‐fated journey. … There was no place to which she could make a pilgrimage to seek redemption.  Her lot was to stay here, to wait and worry and try to endure her opposition to her parents.  A strange, cold winter light fell over all her memories of her meetings with Erlend” … tenacity in holding on to Erlend with winter imagery enforcing the coldness and bleakness of her sentiments 

242  Ulvhild’s death at heart of winter … (one last thing) 

245  prophecy: “one day the river would take the farm” 

Chapter Five (Kristin’s betrothal to Erlend) 

248  Lavrans and Sirs Munan and Sir Baard … negotiation over Kristin and her nature (man over woman) 

252  resolution: one year betrothal bcz. “the previous year had been so bad in the valley” 

21  

Chapter Six (betrothal celebration less than …) 

253  “A slight fear began to stir inside her—faint and dim, but always present—that perhaps, in some way, it might be difficult for them when they were finally married, because they had been too close to each other in the beginning and then had been separated for far too long” … they don’t truly KNOW each other: who they are, what makes them tick, and how they do things 

258  visit with Br. Edvin … “I have loved the roads themselves”   a truly beautiful passage to illuminate process of LIVING  

260  “She was now quite cut off from the person she had been—the time when she was a maiden”  

Chapter Seven (deus ex machina … sort of)  

263  Kristin’s sentiments about Erlend  

265  “Erlend’s legitimate son … KARMIC DEBT TO BE PAID  

266  Kristin’s reticence (again and again) … anticipation of marriage dynamics (communication and lack thereof) 

269  deus ex machina … lightning and Church fire   UNDSET updates this Greek literary device for a modern audience by showing conflict & resolution in material world rather than judgment per se from divine realm 

272  Erlend’s appearance: juxtaposition of danger and excitement at danger (knight and knight errant) 

272  invocation of Ulvhild and loss of Church … “She has not lost the home of her soul, as the rest of us have this evening”  

Chapter Eight (closure for Lavrans and Ragnfrid) 

279  Lavrans of two minds: “A paltry matter or a great one”  

284  “The time will come soon enough when the two of you will have to pay for everything you’ve taken—have no fear of that” … outer landscape mirroring inner landscape  

285  “her sin” and her prayer … faith on shaky ground 

“Her face was as rigid as stone, she was trying so hard to keep herself calm, but her body trembled and shuddered as she knelt there and was married to Erlend”  

288  ritual of 6 witnesses to Kristin and Erlend’s wedding bed and night   “Only once did the bride dare to look up and meet his eyes” 

290  Lavrans’ despair over Kristin’s loss of virginity before her wedding  

22  

292  “His thoughts were tumbling and racing through his mind” … “He had never loved anyone” (293) … “And yet it seemed that his heart had burst with blood—for what he had never had.  And for his wife, here at his side, to whom he had been unable to give himself” (294) 

297   Ragnfrid’s overwhelming sense of unworthiness and self‐sacrifice for Lavrans    tableau of closing image of Lavrans and Ragnfrid: no need for any more words with clarity, understanding, and compassion  

Notes on Mini‐Lecture on Conflict in Literature: 

How does conflict operate in a story?   

  “instances of unrest”   What is “rest”?  

mind and body in harmony 

realization of truths to human conditions 

conscience can live with wins and losses of the day and choices  

akin to the verb of a sentence   it DRIVES the story and gives us insights into the characters and their situations 

What are the different kinds of conflict that a character experiences?  

character vs. character (protagonist vs. antagonist) 

  character vs. society (viz. dominant groups) 

  character vs. nature (natural and/or industrial) 

  *character against self 

NB: Pay attention to dialogues, actions, descriptions 

If conflicts find their resolution at the end of stories, how are conflicts ultimately resolved?    

deus ex machina (“God from the Machine”) … lame plot device to tie up loose ends   typically unforeseen 

 acc. to Aristotle, resolution cannot come from without (false sense of closure); must come from within! 

 

 

 

 

23  

Group Work:   ______________________  _______________________        23 February 2009 

    ______________________  _______________________ 

    ______________________ 

Directions: Reference specific moments and key quotations from the story.   

Apply your understanding of conflict, as outlined by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Pieper, to the protagonist Kristin Lavransdatter.  What are the different conflicts, internal and external, that she experiences through her coming‐of‐age? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More particularly, what are the different kinds of conflict that Kristin experiences with the most important men in her life: Arne, Simon, Erlend, and ultimately, Lavrans? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do we, as readers, learn about the character, or nature, of the characters, Simon, Lavrans, Erlend, and ultimately, Kristin at the end of this first volume, “The Wreath”?    

 

 

24  

02/18/09 – 2/23/09:  Kristin Lavransdatter Notes 

 

36   Conflict between deep God/father relationship and relationship with the world:  Is there a similarity between Kristen’s relationship with God and her relationship with her father?  There is a deep love there, but it is a transcendent love, one which she is willing to sacrifice, at times, for a more immediate (albeit, superficial) love: 

• “I fear the Devil and love and desire this world like a fool.  But I hold on to the cross with all my strength . . . .”  

45  Conflict between appearance and reality, related to “scandal” (in the limited sense of the word):  Kristin seems to be scandalized by the disparity of opinions concerning God, religious issues, and the world.  Unlike the period of her childhood, when these questions “appeared” to have more black and white answers, her “coming of age” brings with it the possible cynicism associated with a more mature view of reality.  This cynicism, though, could be the end result of a viewpoint which is altered/truncated by a deep sensuality and a superficial approach to human relationships: 

• “It fell like a terrible burden upon her when she realized for the first time that people could have such different opinions about so many things.  And not just evil, godless people disagreeing with good people, but also good people such as Brother Edvin and Sira Eirik—or her mother and father.  She suddenly realized that they too thought differently about many things” (45) 

52   Conflict between a “risk‐filled life” (a personality, e.g., Kristin, willing to take risks for the purpose of attaining those earthly moments – so close to your heart ‐‐ of love, beauty, worldly affirmation, etc.) and a more “careful/prudent life” (a personality, e.g., Simon, unwilling to risk the pains/thorns/briars associated with the, at times, Illicit, grasping for these temporal goods) – are these pockets of fleeting happiness worth the risk associated with them?: 

• “It’s good when you don’t dare do something that doesn’t seem right… But it’s not so good if you think something isn’t right because you don’t dare to do it. … You’ve grown up a great deal this summer.  I wonder if you realize how lovely you’ve become”  

236   Conflict between deep God/father relationship and relationship with the world:  Is there a similarity between Kristen’s relationship with God and her relationship with her father?  There is a deep love there, but it is a transcendent love, one which she is willing to sacrifice, at times, for a more immediate (albeit, superficial) love: 

• “Kristen,” pleaded Fru Aashild fearfully, “you won’t give up Erlend now, will you?  The two of you can’t be saved unless you save each other.”  “That’s hardly what a priest would say,” said Kristin, smiling coldly.  “But I know that I won’t let go of Erlend – even if I have to trample on my own father.” (Part 3, Chapter 3 – Lavrans Bjorgulfson) 

25  

236  Conflict between appearance and reality, related to “scandal” (in the limited sense of the word):  Kristin seems to be scandalized by the disparity of opinions concerning God, religious issues, and the world.  Unlike the period of her childhood, when these questions “appeared” to have more black and white answers, her “coming of age” brings with it the possible cynicism associated with a more mature view of reality.  This cynicism, though, could be the end result of a viewpoint which is altered/truncated by a deep sensuality and a superficial approach to human relationships: 

• “Kristen,” pleaded Fru Aashild fearfully, “you won’t give up Erlend now, will you?  The two of you can’t be saved unless you save each other.”  “That’s hardly what a priest would say,” said Kristin, smiling coldly.  “But I know that I won’t let go of Erlend – even if I have to trample on my own father.” (Part 3, Chapter 3 – Lavrans Bjorgulfson) 

240   Conflict between deep God/father relationship and relationship with the world:  Is there a similarity between Kristen’s relationship with God and her relationship with her father?  There is a deep love there, but it is a transcendent love, one which she is willing to sacrifice, at times, for a more immediate (albeit, superficial) love: 

• “But she would not give him up – not unless he released her from all promises.” 

• “And in the midst of her most bitter sorrow over her sister, Kristin realized with horror that her own soul had been led astray and was corrupted by sin.” 

• 241 “. . . if Ulvhild dies, how will I be able to endure facing my father without throwing myself down before him, to confess everything and to beg him to forgive me and to do with me what he will.” 

248   Conflict between deep God/father relationship and relationship with the world:  Is there a similarity between Kristen’s relationship with God and her relationship with her father?  There is a deep love there, but it is a transcendent love, one which she is willing to sacrifice, at times, for a more immediate (albeit, superficial) love: 

• “And Sir Baard said with a little smile, ‘It seems that your daughter has demonstrated that she is not lacking in will.  For two years she has stood by Erlend, in spite of your wishes.’” 

 

02/23/09 

 

• Conflict between the ideal of Aristotelian/Thomistic virtue and Kristin/Erlend:  Were they virtuous by Aquinas’ standards or Aristotle’s standards?  By any standard – Plato’s?  Do they possess Aquinas’ ideal freedom, or are they enslaved to something, even at their own expense? 

• Are their sins the most serious kinds of sins?  Are the effects of their sins serious? 

26  

• Kristin’s world:  Is it “fixable” or is it absurd?  Is the problem with her or with the universe as a whole? 

• Conflict between fixed marriage ideal and marriage for love’s sake:  is there any real substance beyond the sexual tension between Kristin and Erlend? 

 

Class Notes for Beowulf (02/25/09) 

Historical Context 

External Conflicts typically manifest in wars of conquest (e.g. 300).  Particular to Beowulf … 

Romans invaded England around 43 BC and stayed until 5th‐Century 

Germanic invasions occurred in Europe, and Romans left England around 410 AD (e.g. King Arthur) 

Germanic conquest occurred around 450 AD  

• Angles (from Southern Denmark) 

• Jutes (probably from the Frankish Rhineland) 

• Saxons (from Northern Germany) 

• Frisians (from the Low Countries) 

• Geats (from Sweden)  Britons, not annihilated, but overrun; Germanic culture and language predominant until Norman invasion in 1066, thus Germanic tribes not yet converted to Christianity, so confluence of gods, monsters, and invading tribes in Beowulf as pagan 

ines 102‐114) Grendel 5 (l3436

42

 (lines 1258‐1268) Grendel’s mother   (lines 1355) “They are fatherless creatures” 

 By 6th‐Century, most of England converted to Christianity.  Transcriber of Beowulf: witness to transitional period between paganism and Christianity and, as the prose poetry reads, would have been a Christian and, thus, speaks of Christian topics (What are they within the poem?)   

 (lines 1605‐1611) God, the Father   Cultural Context  Who is Beowulf? aristocrat AND warrior (lesser warriors known as “thanes”) who gave allegiance to and won honor of their king (or chieftain with tribal systems)   honor gained through heroic deeds; thus, action and recognition of that action 

23 (lines 855‐862) “Beowulf’s doings were praised over and over again” 

27  

  hierarchy later perpetuated in feudal systems throughout Medieval European city‐states 

 Germanic Heroic Code: STRENGTH, COURAGE, LOYALTY  

 modulates between Christian ethical code (glory in the afterlife and a peaceful, forgiving attitude towards one’s enemies) and pagan code of revenge (injury done to man or people must needs be avenged)   warrior culture values retaliation and revenge  

• 11 (lines 340‐347) “The man whose name was known for courage” 

• 13 (lines 422‐441) “I have suffered extremes and avenged the Geats. … Whichever one death fells must deem it a just judgment by God” 

• 18 (lines 630‐641) “He addressed Wealhtheow. … regal and arrayed with gold”  

Greatest Good= public esteem; Greatest Evil=public disgrace 

Shift in Beowulf 

• 59 (lines 2324‐2344) Dragon’s treasure (representations of what?)  o 69 (lines 2766‐2767) … lesson of treasure o 71 (lines 2843‐2844) … treasure=Beowulf’s life 

• 65 (lines 2583‐2591) “Beowulf was foiled of a glorious victory” • 76 summary of Beowulf’s life and funeral  

 Friendship and Loyalty   between men emphasized more so than romantic passion or love (akin to Lord of the Rings)   profound irony: everyone bound by friendships and feuds of family and community 

• 25 (lines 938‐948) “But now a man with the Lord’s assistance. … May the God of Ages continue to keep and requite you well”  

• 44 (lines 1698‐1708) “Then everyone hushed. … helping hand” • 48 (lines 1873‐1879) friendship between Geats and Danes  

 Heart of Community and Safe Haven: the Mead Hall   cultural institution (perhaps later replaced by churches?)   food, drink, song, warmth and light (in contrast to world outside its doors)  Literary Context  tradition of oral storytelling, the folk epic typically based on legends and/or events (quite particular to time period)   transcribed by poets  “Old English”: variant of Germanic language spoken by Angles, Saxons, and Jutes  Beowulf manuscript discovered in 18th‐Century and published in early 19th‐Century (1815) and considered Anglo‐Saxon poetry   

28  

1. Evil in conflict with Good (Darkness in conflict with light).  Monsters (Grendel, etc.) embody the effects of sin and perhaps a punishment from God.  The monsters do not follow the warrior’s code, which includes fidelity, honor, and the protection of the community from unjust aggression.  Civilization (light of the mead hall, feasting, daylight) vs. the uncivilized (night, the darkness of Grendel’s lair, the inescapable, eternal darkness of hell, fear of the unknown); 

• 7 (line 159) “. . . young and old were hunted down by that dark death‐shadow who lurked and swooped in the long nights on the misty moors;” 

• 13 (line 412) “. . . in this legendary hall, how it lies deserted empty and useless once the evening light hides itself under heaven’s dome.” 

•  14 (line 483) “But when dawn broke and day crept in over each empty, blood‐spattered bench, the floor of the mead hall where they had feasted would be slick with slaughter.” 

• 23 (line 849) “With his death upon him, he had dived deep into his marsh‐den, drowned out his life and his heathen soul:  hell claimed him there.” 

• 26 (line 1001) “But death is not easily escaped from by anyone:  all of us with souls [immortal?], earth‐dwellers and children of men, must make our way to a destination already ordained [pre‐determination?] where the body, after the banqueting, sleeps on its deathbed.” 

• 37 (line 1365) “At night there [Grendel’s mother’s lair], something uncanny happens:  the water burns.  And the mere bottom has never been sounded by the sons of men.”  

2. Sin of PRIDE as that which shapes the heroic code: fine line between recognition of honor (i.e. sense of self for higher good) and emphasis on ego (i.e. “selfish” sense of self) 

• 45 (lines 1738‐1768) “The whole world conforms to his will. … Do not conform to pride. … Your piercing eye will dim and darken; and death will arrive, dear warrior, to sweep you away”   insert of Christian speaker anticipating and perhaps judging Beowulf  

3. “Home” destroyed and Germanic heroic code shifts to pagan code of retaliation prior to ascendance to throne   irony: ascendance to throne in tandem with imminent demise (recognition of his own end, his own mortality) 

• 59 (lines 2324‐2345) “Then Beowulf was given bad news. … long leasehold on the treasure” 

• 61 (lines 2425‐2471) “Beowulf. … as a man of substance will”  

• 65 (lines 2583‐2591) “Beowulf. … the leasehold of his days”  

4. Allegory (particularly Christian form) or Conflict of Competing Belief Systems (pagan/Christian)? 

• begins with funeral of Beow the Great (cf. line 19) not to be confused with ending funeral of Beowulf the Geat   glory in life not necessarily in afterlife 

o Is it significant that Beowulf does not have a son though Wiglaf is his surrogate heir just as he was to Hrothgar?    about male codes of honor that become undermined through rivalries (e.g. sibling rivalry of Herebeald and Haethcyn, cf.61) 

68 (lines 2701‐2751) “Once again the king. … I have long maintained” 

 

29  

Notes on “God vs. Science,” David Van Biema 

03/02/09 

1 Color brain imaging:  illustrates the physical seat of the will/passions – why does this imaging “challenge the religious concept of a soul”? 

2 Dawkins:  belief in miracles is “contradictory.”  Comment:  miracles, by definition, involve a suspension of the laws of nature. 

3 Dawkins:  the net effect of cumulative changes over billions of years yields these “monsters of improbability”.  Are we witnessing a “theft of logic”? 

3 Collins:  God (or some kind of “necessary being”) – being a “transcendent” God ‐‐ could have infused nature with the natural law of evolution, leading up to purposefully designed existents. 

3 Dawkins: Why would God wait 10 billion years to create life and another 4 billion years to create human life?  (objection:  God views things sub specie aeternitatis). 

3 Dawkins:  It took this long to get the constants right that would uphold the fragility of life in the universe, or perhaps, out of the billions of multiverses, one finally got it right (insert wristwatch analogy here).  Objection:  what “locked” the constants once they were correct and why? 

3 Collins:  If constants were off by one part in a hundred million million, then expansion after the Big Bang could not have occurred as it did, or, at all. 

3 Collins:  the God explanation is the most simple and compelling (Occam’s razor), for it does not violate the scientific principle of the cause being greater than or equal to, the effect. 

4 Collins:  there is not a problem with the explanation for nature being outside of nature – in fact, the explanation must be outside of nature, in order for it to explain nature.  There is more of an open‐mindedness here, than to restrict the explanation of nature to nature.  The existence of altruism and a knowledge of right and wrong is more consistent with a God explanation than it being the end result of random mutations. 

Notes on David Van Biema’s “God vs. Science” (Sulit) 

*Interview raises conflict between Neo‐Darwinian, Richard Dawkins, and liberal theologian (?), Francis Collins   talking across purposes (?)  

*How are conflicts raised, addressed, and/or resolved?   

Page 1 of 6   the conflict between Creationism and Evolution a false dichotomy? 

    unasked question: What of perspectives of those who are atheist?   

Page 2 of 6  middle ground: “we want it all”  

30  

Page 3 of 6  acc to Dawkins, “gradual, incremental improvement” in Darwin’s theory 

    acc to Collins, Occam’s Razor would posit belief in God as simplest explanation 

Page 4 of 6  acc to Dawkins, God as the “mother and father” of all cop‐outs   what of responsibility?   

    acc to Collins, science cannot account for questions that we ask of existence 

    acc to Dawkins, miracles against laws of nature  

Page 5 of 6  acc to Collins, science cannot explain altruism, justice, morality   not simply “misfires” of Darwin   what of good vs. evil? 

Notes on William D. Dean’s “A Legitimate Quarrel between Scientists and Theologians” 

*Essay raises problems: dichotomy between science and religion; reduction/subordination of theology inevitably to science; current status of science vs. religion debate   impasse  

*Essay points to necessity in confronting rather than avoiding the conflict’s topics 

249  methods and theories of disciplines construct a singular worldview (which is a serious problem) 

  accounts for practices of disciplines lead into accounts of conflict   not a “bad” thing 

theologians tend to defer to scientists, who are better at actual practices though theologians better at practices of human freedom, sacred realities, and moral values  

250  false dichotomy between science and religion   cannot reduce or subordinate one to the other … reiterated on 252 

253  3 examples: tornado, guilt, and conflict between smaller nations (viz. Nelson Mandela) … diverse practices in conflict management 255 

256  conflict avoidance vs. conflict engagement  

  science and religion (viz. Niels Bohr) … “uncanny ‘complementarity’”  

257   “organic history”: balance between physical and spiritual  

Notes on Nancy R. Howell’s “Implications of Science for Religious Life” 

*Essay reverses tendency to use reduced/subordinate theology to science by exploring “implications of science for religious life” 

*I see flow but are there gaps in logic?  Are the conflicts raised in this article inevitably resolved? 

154+  3 instances of empathy and compassion in primate world 

31  

157  self‐ and relational awareness   “emotional contagion” 

159  instances of brutality in primate world (e.g. rape and warfare) 

160  humans capable of “deliberate cruelty”  

161  self‐mastery in humans and in animals 

  definition of worldview: “nature of universe and its relations”   relationality 165 

162  kin‐ and in‐group selection 

  3 different kinds of altruism: kin, reciprocal, and group 

3 different kinds of empathy: emotional, cognitive (akin to concordance), and extended 

163  altruism   self in relation to Other (self in Christian love and self‐sacrificial love) 

164  freedom (akin to free will): that which fluctuates between brutality and altruism 

165  definition of theology: “nature or and relationship with God” 

  love: human imitates divine love 

  definition of kenosis: divine   human (i.e. Jesus Christ) 

166  gendered implications for kenosis: masculine (getting out of way of freedom; self‐limitation) and feminine (nurturing and sustaining into freedom; self‐sacrifice) 

  relationship between kenosis and altruism (two distinct things) 

  goodness as outcome of struggle  

167  Darwinian science and theology: both have a self‐emptying love as foundation … Is conflict resolved?  

168  God’s kenotic love makes room for Darwinian world   love as action and suffering 

169  definition of ethics: “principled action” 

  kin altruism as “beneficence from self‐interest” 

  “love of neighbor or enemy as self” as shallow  

170  white theology and ethics (constructed differences of, say, race and gender 

171  kenotic love as “not editing the experience” 

  weak emotions do NOT equal true engagement 

172  “care‐filled listening and observing and engagement” 

  *do NOT confuse guilt for accountability and empathy for engagement 

  kenotic love as “self‐emptying”  

 

 

Mount Saint Mary College

General Education 202: The Individual, Conflict, and Society

Midterm Exam: March 5/6, 2009

 

Part I: True or False 32 points/2 points each (Plato’s Republic)

1. T F The sophists were not interested in the truth of the arguments they presented.

2. T F Plato did not believe that the most important truths already exist in our minds.

3. T F Plato did not believe that the soul/self was immortal.

4. T F After Socrates exposed the errors and ignorance of “wise” people, they became angry.

5. T F Plato believed that our purpose in life is to achieve communion with the ultimate, transcendent

reality of the Forms.

6. T F Learning is a matter of recollecting what we already know but have forgotten.

7. T F Reality/truth can only be known through sense experience.

8. T F The true philosopher is usually not courageous.

9. T F The sophists were interested in the truth of the arguments they presented.

10. T F Plato believed that the material world gave us new knowledge that we did not have before.

11. T F Plato wanted “opinion” rather than knowledge of the “forms.”

12. T F For Plato, the material world was real and not a “distraction.”

13. T F The “forms” were grasped only by the intellect and not by the senses.

14. T F Katharsis involved purification from spiritual distractions.

32  

33  

15. T F The true philosopher is not afraid of death.

16. T F For Plato, sense experience “reminded” the soul of knowledge that it already had.

Part II: Fill-in-the-Blank, Multiple Choice, AND True or False 18 points/2 points each (Nicomachean Ethics)

17. For Aristotle, the highest good is _____________________________.

18. Happiness is “free” because __________________________________.

19. Virtue is a “mean” between two ______________________________.

20. _____What is virtue?

(a) a mean

(b) a good habit

(c) a disposition to act in accordance with reason

(d) all of the above

21. _____Being virtuous requires that in performing virtuous actions

a) the person knows what he is doing

b) he intends to do it for its own sake

c) he takes pleasure in the action

d) all of the above

22. _____The following things can have ethical virtue

a) a lamp

b) a giraffe

c) a human being

d) b and c

23. T F Happiness is final but not free.

24. T F Happiness is “free” because it does not cost anything.

25. T F Virtue is a “mean” between one negative and one positive extreme.

Part III: Short Answers 30 points/15 points each

Directions: Choose TWO questions and write 1-2 paragraphs, referencing specific moments from the materials.

34  

1. What are the main plot points of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” and what, ultimately, is its main theme?

2. What specific items in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” correspond to elements in Plato’s metaphysical schema, which divided the material world from the spiritual “world of Forms”?

3. To what extent, if at all, does 300’s King Leonidas exemplify the key markers of a philosopher-king? Explain the reasoning behind your answer.

4. What kind of nation-state does Persia seem to be under the rule of King Xerxes? In your opinion, were the Persians free? Why or why not?

5. In The Four Cardinal Virtues, explain Pieper’s argument for innate human rights, and explain how these rights are related to his ideal of Justice.

6. In what ways does the external conflict between Beowulf and the Dragon also indicate an internal conflict for Beowulf?

Part IV: Long Essays 20 points

Directions: Choose ONE question, and write 3-4 paragraphs, referencing specific moments from the story.

7. How is St. Thomas Aquinas’s quotation, “Will it,” reflected and/or refracted in Kristin’s character of Sigrid Undset’s Kristin Lavransdatter?

8. In Sigrid Undset’s Kristin Lavransdatter, does Kristin enjoy the freedom that Aristotle and Aquinas associate with a rational transformation of one’s emotions, appetites, and desires? Explain your answer.

9. In what ways does Kristin exemplify the typical embodiments of both a “good” woman and a “bad”

woman, as represented in the bigger conflict between living “a risk-filled life” and a “careful, prudent life”?

10. Explore the relationship between Kristin and Lavrans and the ways in which this relationship

reflects the relationship between Kristin and God. Does Kristin give God and her father what “they deserve,” in truth? Explain your answer.

11. Compare and contrast the ways in which PRIDE, the deadliest of the “seven deadly attitudes,”

manifests itself in TWO out of the THREE characters: Leonidas, Kristin, or Beowulf.

12. What are the conflicts, internal and external, that bring about Beowulf’s downfall as a hero?

Part V: Extra-Credit Questions 5 points/1 point each

1. ________The name of deformed hunchback who betrays the Spartans: a) Theron b) Stealios c) Ephialtes d) Dilios

2. ________The battle between the Persians is foreshadowed by what event in Leonidas’s past:

35  

a) witnessing the death of a baby b) being beaten by his father c) fighting with the wolf d) killing the Persian messenger

3. ________The three qualities that the Germanic hero embodies: a) strength, courage, and humor b) intellect, courage, and loyalty c) strength, courage, and loyalty d) loyalty, generosity, and magnanimity

4. ________Aristotle resolves Plato’s distinction between the spiritual world and the material world through which concept? a) Arete b)Hexis c)Substance d)Katharsis

5. _______What did Sigrid Undset do with the money she was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize for Literature? a) She traveled the world. b) She gambled it all away. c) She set up charitable foundations. d) She gave it all to the Catholic Church.

03/18/09

Guidelines for the MID-TERM PROJECT 20% (5 pages)

Working individually, research a conflict raised by Gerard Schroeder in The Science of God and Lee Strobel in The Case for a Creator. Examples include the following:

• whether matter and energy provide a sufficient explanation for the entirety of the universe

• whether the Bible or science are, by themselves, a sufficient source for the inquiring mind seeking explanations of the universe

• whether evolutionary theory, by itself and without the concept of a creator, can provide a sufficient explanation of free will

• how can an entity intentionally sacrifice itself for the sake of another [altruism], or even will its own destruction?

36  

• how are these phenomena compatible with natural selection and the notion of “survival of the fittest”?

• whether a belief in God necessarily entails an ignorance of scientific facts

• whether the claim that the universe has always existed (eternally) is a retreat from questions which seek an explanation of the origin of the universe

• the plausibility of the Big Bang Theory and its significance in bridging the science vs. religion conflict

• the current debate on the teaching of evolutionary theory and creationism in secondary or higher education

Use this mid-term project to present your understanding of a conflict raised in this current science/religion unit. This project affords you the unique challenge of creating an engaging, dense yet concise piece of academic writing. Drawing upon TWO sources in addition to Schroeder and Strobel, research the conflict more comprehensively, present the different positions involved, formulate your own position, address possible objections, and attempt a resolution to the conflict.

An effective analysis moves away from explicit “I believe” or “I think” statements regarding the topic at hand and moves towards astute insights about it. Don’t simply offer a summary, or a series of summaries, of the topic being discussed. Do offer very brief summative details that act as departure points and springboards for the understanding of the angles of the debate and your overall analysis.

First, choose a topic that implicitly present intriguing questions that you, as the investigator and/or believer (terms that Schroeder uses), genuinely want to explore. Second, brainstorm questions around that topic. The thesis statement of this mid-term project should propose an explicit interpretation of a question, or series of questions, that remain implicit to the topic. (From the onset, formulate a working thesis statement to guide your thoughts and your research. This thesis statement may change in the course of outlining and drafting your project.) Then, outline or map the supporting details of your topic to develop your argument in a logical and cogent manner. Last, draft and draft some more!

(Perhaps framing it within the cultural moment in which the narrative initially appeared will enable reading it within our contemporary cultural moment.) Like the reflection essays—shorter versions of this kind of analysis—this writing assignment calls for a sense of direction (i.e. the center, the core, the thesis statement) upon which the body of the analysis builds with the element of persuasion, or argumentation, to it.

Bear in the mind the following in the drafting process:

• developing and sustaining an academic voice

• selecting and controlling the subject matter and content

• presenting a focused and persuasive interpretation to a limited audience

• incorporating outside source material within your own prose

• building a coherent and elegant piece of writing

37  

A word about plagiarism: Don’t. Typically, cases of plagiarism are inadvertent (e.g. faulty citations). Whenever summarizing, paraphrasing, or quoting, always remember to cite. A citation only requires the name of the author, the name of the work, and the page reference. Simple. If there are issues—grammatical and (much) broader—that present themselves in writing this paper, please consult with us, the professors, and/or the Student Writing Center—sooner rather than later.

Rubric for Mid‐Term Project 

Your paper will need to explain the specific conflict and present the most plausible response to the conflict. This paper will, in part, require a summary of the different aspects of the conflict and an explanation of the argument that supports the response you will be presenting. Your paper must then present a criticism of the position you take and give a response to that criticism. Finally, you will need to present the implications of the position you take. This requirement is simply asking you to explain what the implications or consequences of your position might be.  In this assignment, for example, if you are exploring whether or not a belief in God necessarily entails an ignorance of scientific facts, what are the implications or consequences of your position relating to the culture conflict over, say, human experimentation.  Or, asked another way, should we impose moral values on scientific research? 

 To complete this paper you will need to address the following points: 

1. The General Issue  

a. State the issue you will be writing about  

b. Present the problem being addressed in this issue  

c. State the main responses to the problem  

2. Response to Problem  

a. State the response you believe that is the most plausible position  

b. Explain the argument that can be offered to support the position you are holding  

3. Criticism/Response  

a. State and explain the criticism of the response that you are presenting 

b. State and explain the response you would make to the criticism  

4. Implication  

a. State and explain the implication of the response  

The rubric for evaluating these assignments is provided below. If you have any questions, please ask. 

 

 

 

 

38  

The Issue (20)  Absent and/or Superficial  Average/Above Average  Superior  

State the issue  

(0‐5) 

No statement is presented (0‐1) 

A statement is presented, but it is not clearly stated (2‐4) 

A statement is clearly presented (5) 

Present the problem  

(0‐10) 

The problem is not identified (0‐3)  

The problem is stated, but it is not clearly stated or elements of the problem are left out (4‐7) 

The problem is clearly presented and stated  

(8‐10)  

Possible Responses to the Problem (0‐5) 

Two or more responses are left out (0‐2) 

One response is left out  

(3‐4) 

All responses are clearly stated (5)  

Position (40)  Absent and/or Superficial  Average/Above Average  Superior  

Your Position on the problem (0‐10) 

No statement of the position (0‐3)  

The position is stated but unclearly stated (4‐7) 

The position is clearly stated (8‐10) 

Argument in support of your position (0‐30)  

The argument is missing several premises or is inaccurately stated (0‐10) 

Several premises are unclearly stated or the argument is incompletely presented (11‐23) 

The argument is completely and accurately presented  

(24‐30) 

Criticism/Response (20)  Absent and/or Superficial  Average/Above Average  Superior 

Criticism (0‐10)  No criticism is presented (0‐3) A criticism is presented but it is not clearly stated (4‐7) 

A clearly stated criticism is presented (8‐10)  

Response (0‐10)  No response is presented (0‐3) 

A response is presented but it is not clearly stated (4‐7) 

A clearly stated response is presented (8‐10)  

Implication (10)  Absent and/or Superficial  Average/Above Average  Superior 

State and explain the implication (0‐10) 

No implication is stated (0‐3)  An implication is presented, but it is not clear how it arises from the position (4‐7) 

An implication is clearly stated and explained (8‐10) 

Overall (0‐10)  Absent and/or Superficial  Average/Above Average  Superior 

  The paper has two or more areas that are unacceptable (0‐3) 

The paper has one unacceptable areas or two or more that are incomplete  

(4‐7) 

The paper has no unacceptable areas and one or zero incomplete areas  

(8‐10) 

 

 

 

 

39  

03/18/09 

Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics coupled with Aquinas’ De Ente et Essentia and his Divisions and Methods of the Sciences”

This presentation will explore some of the original gold standards of scientific knowledge and explain how these standards are still applicable to critical issues in science, philosophy and natural theology today.

Aristotle: The Three Kinds of Scientific Knowledge

Science, for Aristotle, comes in three parts: 1) speculative, 2) practical, and 3) productive.

Aristotle’s Realist Epistemology

For Aristotle, the cause of knowledge is twofold: 1) the reality outside the mind (form and matter), and 2) our understanding of that reality, once the mind is informed by means of the senses.

Aristotle’s Four Preliminary Scientific Questions

In Book Beta, chapter one, of the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle posits four questions which correspond to the things we know: 1) Quia (Is that the case?) – which is the question regarding the connection between a property and a thing, “whether S is P,” 2) Propter Quid (Why is S, P?) – which is the question regarding the reason for the connection between the subject and the property, 3) Si est (Whether S is) – which is the question (a judgment) regarding the existence of a thing, and 4) Quid est (What S is) -- which is the question regarding the nature of a thing.

Aristotle: Five Criteria for Science

In addition to these preliminary questions, Aristotle posits three objective criteria for science. Three of these criteria point to the objective domain: 1) to know something scientifically, one must know the cause of the fact, 2) this cause must be a “necessary nexus,” and 3) this necessary nexus must be a commensurate universal – true in every case.

There are also two subjective criteria: 4) that the act of knowing be discursive, via a demonstrative syllogism, and 5) that one reason from premises which are true, primary, immediate, and better known than the conclusion.

Limitations of Aristotelian Science

Aristotelian science becomes stranded between two extremes: 1) the ordinary: it cannot make a science out of the singular, and 2) the extraordinary: theology cannot be known of itself because it has no matter, and therefore abstraction is impossible.

The matter/form composite of things is held together by the circular motion of the heavenly spheres (the 55 “Moved Movers”), which in turn are put in motion by the Prime Mover, who in turn is moved necessarily by the Unmoved Mover. Since there is a necessity here, all things must be in constant perpetual motion, because the cause of motion cannot be separated from its effect. There cannot be any gaps in motion that would allow contingent events to take place.

40  

Aquinas’ Division and Methods of the Sciences

1) Natural Philosophy – the 1st degree of abstraction, for it depends upon matter both for its being and for its being understood. There are, however, two subdivisions for natural philosophy.

“dianoetic” – the ability of the intellect to abstract from sensibles the form of a thing (ontological knowledge), for we can abstract “wholes” from parts, and “forms” from matter.

“perinoetic” – knowledge interested simply in sensible particulars, and sensible accidents, for it stays on the outskirts of a thing.

2) Mathematics – the 2nd degree of abstraction, for it depends upon matter for its being but not for its being understood. In math, the knower extracts a form from the form. There can also be intermediate sciences, such as those which refer mathematical principles back to dianoetic and perinoetic structures.

3) Theology – the 3rd degree of abstraction, the science of Being qua Being, for it does not depend upon matter either for its being, or for its being understood. This is also called First Philosophy, for it does not inquire into the form of a thing, nor the perinoetic part, nor the form of the form, but into being qua being.

Aquinas: The Primary Object of Science

The principles and causes of reality which it examines but does not make.

1st level – physics: as abstracted from motion, the forma totus (essence) is studied. It is not the form, not the matter, but the whole matter/form composite.

2nd level – mathematics: as abstracted from matter, the form of the form is studied. Outside the mind, math relies on a real, accidental property.

3rd level – natural theology/philosophy: studies being itself, substance, quality, potency/act, one/many, God.

Aquinas: Capacities of the Human Intellect

Judgment (separatio between “is” and “is not”): affirms or negates the existence of things outside the mind. Existence cannot be conceived, but judgment can be done because there is a distinction between essence and existence.

The highest science concerns that which is not conceptualizable, and there can be a science of this distinction.

The lowest science concerns that which is conceptualizable.

These distinctions allow being to be a direct object of scientific inquiry, for “is-ing” does not depend upon matter – matter depends upon it. {Accidents>Matter>Form} > Esse.

Aquinas: The Science of the Distinction Between Essence and Existence

The Scientific Argument (inductive/a posteriori):

41  

Premise A: the essence (nature) of contingent (non-necessary) things cannot explain their existence, and, given the fact that a created being cannot be self-caused, a distinction must be made between the essence of a thing and its original and continued existence.

Premise B: the existence of contingent things can be explained by the theoretical positing an uncreated necessary being that does not have such a distinction between essence and existence. Its existence must be identical to its essence and it must not only be the source of the existence of all contingent beings, but it must also maintain these contingent beings in existence from moment to moment.

Premise C: this uncreated, necessary being must have always existed (i.e., it must be uncaused) and the quality of its existence must be at least equal to or greater than the quality of the existence of the created beings which it maintains from moment to moment.

Conclusion: contingent things are radically dependent (not only for their coming into being, but also for their continued existence) upon this theoretical “uncaused cause,” whose essence is identical with its existence.

Aquinas’ Response to Aristotelian Science

As we indicated earlier, being (“is-ing”) for Aquinas is not dependent on eternal matter; rather, matter depends upon it. There is a dependence for all contingent things/events upon Ipsum Esse Subsistens, and this necessity becomes the propter quid for every scientific fact.

Aquinas’ “necessary being,” as Ipsum Esse Subsistens, can take its time with matter, because creation is not necessary, even though Aquinas’ “necessary being” has the capacity to create ex nihilo.

The Act of Being is not dependent upon matter: sheer Esse gives propter quids for the rest of science.

The principle of “subalternation”: For Aquinas, The 3rd level should give way to faith, just as the 1st level should give way to the 3rd level.

03/18/09 – 03/23/09

Notes on Gerard Schroeder’s The Science of God (1998)

NB: crux of first part about disciplinary investment and interpretation

Chapter One “Has Science Replaced the Bible?”

The question of “why”: do we need a “transcendent” being to ground existence, to ground morality, and to give meaning and purpose to life? (Prologue)

The answers to these questions can be “frightening,” and they can be traumatic, for they imply a change in “paradigm.” This paradigmatic shift has relevance to the “four

42  

great verities” (death, love, war, and poverty) which are, in themselves frightening, but which produce a new outlook on life, with new re-set priorities that are more meaningful and less superficial.

In the beginning was the Word: the original meaning of Logos (wisdom), which created both the “starry heavens, and the moral law within me” (Kant). “Wisdom and knowledge are the basis of, and can actually create energy, which in turn creates matter.” (E=mc2)

2 purpose of existence (“why”) neglected in scientific investigation (“how”). Science has not made an genuine attempt to discern a purpose to existence.

God typically seen as that which INTERVENES in nature, thus, disavowal of notion that God set into motion mechanism by which laws of nature could exist

both science and religion exist in 70%+ percentage now?

book about duality, not the perceived dichotomy, of knowledge (intellect/reason) and faith, of scientific truth and spiritual truth

3 problem of false dichotomy: “lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible” (biblical literalism as another problem 10)

3 Thesis: Neither the Bible, nor science, are in themselves a sufficient source for the inquiring mind seeking explanations of the universe.

5 all scientific inquiry based on CONSISTENCY

Life: requires an incredible amount of fine tuning, but the earth is truly “tuned for life:” 10120 … about ATTUNEMENT (“at-one-ment”)

6 concept of “eternal universe” viz. Aristotle: “nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever will,” so we have an eternally existing universe (but is this answer to the question simply a retreat from the question of, “what is a sufficient explanation of the universe”?) denial of creation, thus, counter to the notion of creation by a “Community of Persons (God),” viz. the Bible.

7 distinction between claims of Bible and of Church (e.g. centrality of Earth or Sun in Universe)

The Bible can be the “handmaid” of science, and vice versa.

8 Darwin: “its (evolution’s) several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator in a few [life] forms, or into one.”

8 Huxley: became the “enforcer” for atheistic Darwinism: the facts (gaps in the fossil record) were not going to stand in his way, as he promoted a “falsified fossil record.”

10 contradictions in the literal interpretation of Genesis: e.g., Adam was supposed to die after eating the forbidden fruit – he lived for another 930 years.

43  

10 The Bible should be treated as a “poem, harboring deeper meanings,” and poems can have much truth to tell.

10 “nature only makes jumps”

12 The Law of Nature: Stephen J. Gould: “a flow of life channeled by laws inherent to the universe” (see page 2)

12 another “why” question: Why does “only one genetic system seem to work” (DNA)?

13 Creator nature and its “natural” pattern (see page 2)

13 The Creator respects the “laws of nature,” for He has a respect for the “autonomy of nature.”

14 “worldly intellect” vs. “ethereal neshana” (human soul)

14-15 “the laws of nature provide direction,” but there is leeway flexible structure contingent upon locale

meanderings of evolution and nature = free will. Can evolution and the theory of natural selection, by itself and without a creator, explain how an entity could intentionally sacrifice itself for the sake of another, or even will its own destruction?

15 biblical trends of a “shortening life”

16 tsimtsum=contraction Creator removes part of Its infinite unity

18 “Religion requires belief and belief is built on knowledge.”

Chapter Two “The New Convergence”

21 scientists and two things: 1. read/understand Bible on its terms 2. acknowledge limit to knowledge (science cannot account for “purpose” of life)

the “plumbing” of the universe (physics begins scientific inquiry to “how” of existence)

22 no time, no space, no matter “the beginning” vs. Aristotelian logic of “the eternal universe”

23 “belief in a beginning does not require belief in a Beginner”

24 cause and effect: “So the beginning of the universe cannot be the effect of a cause” “be”

thus, no cause can be identified or discussed

25 theory of an eternal Creator requires “a leap of faith” predicated upon knowledge (i.e. the study of nature)

26 “design by chance” analogy of a lottery

electromagnetic force; nuclear force (strength vs. weakness); gravity; Big Bang (mass/energy, temperature); rate of expansion

44  

27 carbon basis of all life

28 rejection of a randomness of nature

properties of earth as that which is self-organized and self-catalyzed

30 Cambrian explosion Day 5 in Bible; macro-evolution not accounted for (and Bible “mute” 32)

32 example of false logic: sudden leaps speak of God’s direct role and gradualism speaks of randomness and thus, no role for God

HOWEVER, 6000 years from Biblical Adam to the present

33 chemistry and physics about CAUSE and EFFECT

quantum mechanics identical causes does NOT lead to identical effects

quantum mechanics “free will”

34 “cognitive dissonance”: “humanity’s inherent desire to ignore unpleasant facts” 38

36 Walcott and discovery in Burgess Shale

1909 buried findings “conspiracy of silence”

38 disciplinary problem of scientific intention and interpretation Gould’s omission regarding the Creator in Darwin’s quotation and Darwin’s actual quotation

40 disciplinary problem of unhinging scientific fact from theory a form of unlearning what and how something has been learned (e.g. evolution and Genesis)

Questions to Pose to Students

How does Schroeder begin to resolve the false conflict between science and religion?

What are the beginnings of his arguments? Are they cogent? Why or why not?

How do you see Schroeder begin to develop a response to his initial question, “Why bother being ‘good’?”

Chapter Three “The Age of Our Universe”

NB: logic of the golden apples, the bridge between material and spiritual worlds

42 carbon-dating (questions of accuracy)

42 15 billion years Psalms 90:4

44 “Our senses may be adequate for getting us to work and back, but when it comes to questions of the cosmos, our senses need help. The secrets of nature are not always revealed by a literal reading of nature” riff on Aristotle’s bridging of material and spiritual worlds

45  

45 1st golden apple: 6 days; alignment of flow of events with flow of time

Genesis no sense of time

astronomy and physics to God and management of nature

47 2nd golden apple: time; theory to law of relativity

time dilation

49 3rd golden apple: many ages of universe

50 4th golden apple: universal clock vs. earth-based time; clock and light of universe are one and same

52 5th golden apple: Big Bang

clock of universe: creation of universe and creation of humankind

53 “cosmic proper time”

55 E=mc2

56 biblical time with creation of MATTER

57 6th golden apple: ages of universe (tohu and bohu)

58 physics biblical tradition modern theology … BRIDGE

Chapter Four “The Six Days of Genesis”

NB: highlight “correlation,” the nature of God, and the disciplinary bridges being formed

60 “the general correlation … is surprisingly good”

62 necessity of logarithmic graph

63 curve of nautilus shell

65 formula (x-y Cartesian coordinates)

66 cosmology paleontology theology … BRIDGE

quick sum up of Big Bang Theory

matter light cosmic time

“inflation” God hovering over universe

67 table for alignment biblical theology and earth days

68 alignment of Genesis theology

46  

70 addresses false claim: there is no need for science anymore reductio ad absurdum (?)

BRIDGE: with claiming a purpose there needs to also be the understanding of the cause of the purpose (theologian to scientist)

71 “Before we look for God in nature, we had better know the nature of God.”

Chapter Five “The Nature of God”

NB: disciplinary rifts (?), end of essay as broaching the “Why bother being ‘good’?” question

73 traits of biblical God Bible vs. realistic description of God world

natural world free will

74 tension: miracles and those divinely chosen rules by God

somewhat akin to Plato’s Allegory with world of illusion presented as reality (shadows) and the essence of Infinity (Sun)

75 “nature is just one manifest aspect of a Unity transcending all existence and therefore subservient to it”

analogy of rose and its thorns “bad things happen to good people” So, why be “good”?

76 case for history (understanding both cosmic AND social past) in order to acknowledge “the immanence of God” (theology)

77 understanding of word “holy” (akin to exile) sign of God

78 Israel “for a transcendent yet immanent Creator” … strange tone here to justify or privilege Judaism (?)

79 “So the biblical God is one who gives leave to chance, who insists He will be seen in nature, who allows free will and injustice. But is He in control? The greatest point of contention between science and religion rises when believers insist God directly controls nature, while scientists insist that nature can run ‘on its own’.”

80 free will vs. chance in nature

importance of Genesis above other religious versions of Creation

81 notion of order and progress in Genesis

notion of a day metaphorical

82 “Why bother being ‘good’?” unity of humanity, unity of existence PROMISED … implicit relation to human rights’ violations

Chapter Six “Life”

47  

84 time and chance “the miracle of life” viz George Wald

85 notion of “chance random reactions” rejected

86 Francis Crick and DNA “directed panspermia” (deliberate planting of life on Earth), which still does not explain a cause for life though indicates “special initial conditions” did arise on Earth (87)

flow of life “teleology”

90 genetics latent library theory runs counter to classical theory of evolution

92 eyes differences in “wiring” across species convergent evolution (akin to writing of sonnet)

94 CHANCE debunked

95 transitional species e.g. reptile to bird (e.g. archaeopteryx)

96 Hebrew words that indicate transition (tinshemet) between disorder (erev) to order (boker) (97)

importance of DIRECTION

98-99 e.g. meteor, dinosaurs, mammals “divine retuning”

Chapter Seven “Evolution”

102 direction ALWAYS necessary (analogy of actual text being produced from letter permutations)

103 definition of convergent evolution “emergence of organs similar in shape or function in animals of different species” (i.e. common ancestry)

104 mention of Richard Dawkins (neo-Darwinism)

108 “forgiving” model of convergent evolution still supports notion of DIRECTION

thus, “a reasonable model for convergent evolution” necessary

111 necessary ingredient for reasonable model is OXYGEN

113 shift from “natura non facit saltum” to natura sola facit saltum (“sudden appearances are the trademark of the fossil record”)

Chapter Eight “The Watchmaker and the Watch”

115 William Paley 1802

120 Does evolution lack intent? What of jump from animals to human beings? (see page 116)

121 mutations must have ORDER

123 question of hundreds of millions of generations to explain evolution from animals to human beings and yet only seven million years accounted for (i.e. 40 generations)

48  

124 thus, time factor does not ostensibly accommodate convergent evolution

Chapter Ten: “The Science of Free Will”

146 Shakespeare: Hamlet: “To be or not to be” – the capacity for choice is central to our existence. Cf. Strobel, “Does God play Scrabble?”

146 Are we governed by the laws of nature, or are we pre-determined?

147 Appearance vs. reality: is freedom an illusion? Summary of the problem.

147, 148, 149 The Problem of Induction: Laplace on “cause and effect” – the “future is predictable and therefore predetermined.”

Hume: the opposite case does not imply a contradiction

148 Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: the more closely a particle was monitored, the less that it could be predicted – there was therefore a “limit to scientific knowledge.”

“no exact edges to measure” “objects have extended, fuzzy boundaries” (Quantum Mechanics)

149 Quantum Mechanics, Einstein, and wave-particle duality: how can an object be both a wave and a particle? Analogy: How can the human person be both free and determined?

159 Theology of Free Will: How can God know the future? He is outside of time, eternally present, the “I am Who Am” of Exodus. (161)

160 Predicted events contrasted with the “if” events – our choices affect the future.

164 If we traveled at the speed of light for 170,000 years, how old would we be? Is light, like God, also outside of time? Light was the first creation in the Bible.

-- Bible: predicted events versus “if” events.

-- God: outside of time, “I am who am,” and His connection to Aquinas’ Ipsum Esse Subsistens, a necessary being who provides the propter quids for true scientific knowledge (according to Aristotle classical standards for scientific knowledge).

Film: Bill Moyers interview with Sir John Houghton

If God is the idea of the greatest possible being (Anselm), then He must be a Person also.

We reason from the “bottom up,” and the “top down.” God is in the 5th Dimension, a “transcendent, spiritual dimension, and, as such, He can

intrude into the 4th dimension for miracles such as the Resurrection. Einstein: time is in the 4th Dimension. Houghton: mental dimension is part of the spiritual (connection to Aquinas’ and Plato’s proofs for the “spirituality/immortality of the human soul.”)

49  

Houghton: Great discoveries of science are made by people who’ve seen something UNUSUAL, outside of the current “paradigm” (for example, the discovery of radioactivity), and this is how science makes progress.

03/18/09 – 03/25/09

Notes on Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator (2004)

Chapter Five “The Evidence of Cosmology”

94 cosmology as the study of the origin of the universe

time as relative viz. Bill Bryson’s A Theory of Everything

95 “the dawning of the universe” akin to religious questions of existence

97 a genealogy (of sorts) of the cosmological argument particular reliance upon philosophy and math

Christian philosopher, 4th-century John Philoponus of Alexandria, Egypt

Muslim theologian, late 11th-early 12th-century al-Ghazali (~North Africa)

kalam: speech or doctrine medieval movement of Islamic theology

98 3 steps (a kind of syllogism): “Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.”

101 quantum vacuum: “Where does it come from?”

103 mathematical contradiction of infinity when thinking of a PAST

104 THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF TRAVERSING THE INFINITE (built of science from philosophy)

105 The Big Bang and “special initial conditions” (see 106)

106 inflation theory (holds a philosophical bias)

107 singularity vs. plurality of a Creator Ockham’s Razor

108 qualities of God parallel the qualities of the cause of the universe broaching Intelligent Design

110 distinction between scientific explanation (certain initial conditions and natural laws, which explain evolution of initial conditions to produce phenomenon) and personal explanation (explanation by means of an agent and that agent’s volition or will)

50  

the cause of universe as personal explanation

the cause of universe transcends time and space, thus, not physical reality

the cause as timeless and immaterial (i.e. abstract objects and a mind “unembodied”)

111 a personal agent has FREE WILL

113 alternatives to Big Bang Theory

Sagan: The Oscillating Model (or the collapsible universe)

115 the Cyclic Universe (light and dark matter); string theory vs. standard quark model of particle physics

116 the 5-D Universe Steady-State Theory (?)

117 quantum models of a universe eternal, infinite mother universe creates offspring universes

118 Theory of Everything seeks to unify general relativity with quantum theory

Chapter Six “The Evidence of Physics”

126 the constants in physics parallels the constants for life “the anthropic principle” (viz. Patrick Glynn)

127 There must be a prima facie purpose behind universal fine-tuning (viz. Robin Collins 129)

130 analogy of biosphere everything balanced on “a razor’s edge”

132 two factors: law of gravity and cosmological constant sense of CALIBRATION

136 calibration denotes DESIGN over chance

137 the Weak Anthropic Principle if universe is not fine-turned, then human beings not around to observe it, and thus, fine-tuning has no explanation

139 multi-verse dodges fine-tuning principle

141 eternal superspace throughout and finite universes within also dodges fine-tuning principle (?)

143 string theory also dodges fine-tuning principles (?)

alternative theories of inflationary cosmology dodge fine-tuning principle

145 notion of an intelligent designer is a natural extrapolation of what we already know

147 connection between simplicity and Beauty

51  

149 physics as that which uncovers God’s fingerprints

“Instead, it’s a cumulative argument. The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility—all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short.”

Chapter Seven “The Evidence of Astronomy”

154 Earth-centered universe (i.e. the Earth as special in terms of place and time) to the Sun-centered

universe the Copernican Revolution 160, which lead to breach between science and religion

161 Dante’s Inferno (Earth and humans as center, at least figuratively)

164 “good” science happening all along but history got it wrong (misrepresenting and misunderstanding of Copernican Revolution)

166 interrelationships among planets etc. still does NOT presuppose a Creator (yet …)

167 globular clusters (e.g. M13) lower heavy elements and high in hydrogen and helium (other

elements “cooked” in interior) “fine-tuning”

168 spiral, elliptical, and irregular galaxies

169 “black hole” as center of galaxy

170 “a narrow safe-zone” for life

172 thus, center of universe not contingent upon being the place most conducive to life

173 habitability of Earth contingent upon other (bigger) planets’ orbits (danger of comets)

174 “circumstellar habitable zone”

175+ significance of our yellow sun (mass and colors emitted)

178 significance of our moon (earth’s tilt and tides)

180 geology of Earth, esp. role of salt

182 plate tectonics, carbon dioxide, surface temperature all in BALANCE

thus, “natural thermostat”

185 scientific investigation human beings and the importance of DISCOVERY

Habitability and measurability of things a mere coincidence or a meaningful pattern?

189 trilemma: natural necessity leads to life; life is a fluke; or life was created

52  

191 “If God so precisely and carefully and lovingly and amazingly constructed a mind-boggling habitat for his creatures, then it would be natural for him to want them to explore it, to measure it, to investigate it, to appreciate it, to be inspired by it—and ultimately, and most importantly, to find him through it.”

Chapter Eight “The Evidence of Biochemistry”

193 evolutionary theory cannot account for biochemical systems or principles (as of yet …)

196 “Darwin’s Black Box” (system or machine that defies knowledge of how it works)

197 Problem of “irreducible complexity”: a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if one of those components were removed, the system would no longer function

198 cells work in similar ways to the Black Box

199 counter to Schroeder, Strobel holds that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is not predicated upon intelligence (as yet …)

alternative and multiple purposes for individual components shot down (200)

200 question raised of modifications to get from alternative/multiple functions to specialized functions

201 significance of ASSEMBLY

202 e.g. cilia defies gradualism, incrementalism or sequentiality

203 time factor, akin to Schroeder

204 e.g. flagellum intra-cellular transport system (207)

208 e.g. ribosome “automated system” (autochthonous?)

209 e.g. process of blood-clotting self-regulation notion of irreducible complexity in this process

214 “acid test” viz. Hall that any part of genetic component can be replaced and/or explained by evolutionary pattern

analogy of a “glitch” need for an “intelligent intervention” (i.e. mutation) and time to fix glitch

212 Has Hall taken on biochemistry? NO, acc. Behe and Strobel, bcz. bridge created btn. biochemistry and evolutionary theory

214 Darwinism more falsifiable (i.e. testable by the methods of science) than Intelligent Design

53  

216 “The purpose of science, it seems to me, is to find out how things got here and how they work. Science should be the search for truth, not merely the search for materialistic explanations. The great scientists of history—Newton and Einstein, for instance—never thought science’s job was to come up with some sort of self-sufficient explanation for nature. This is a recent innovation, and not a good one—especially in light of discoveries during the last fifty years that have pointed in the exact opposite direction.”

Strobel, Chapter Nine: Evidence of Biological Information

Problem of Induction Revisited (from Chapter 5, p. 102: David Hume did not deny “causes”, so the universe did have “a beginning” – a transcendent cause is needed even for a “sea of fluctuating energy”) – relate to Kalam cosmological argument, and the question of whether vacuum energies, scalar fields, and false vacuums are really “nothing.” Even science is now in agreement that the universe had a beginning (contrary to Plato and Aristotle’s eternally existing universes), but does a belief in these non-something “nothings,” which are purely hypothetical, amount to a kind of religious faith?

Connection to the scientific method: highly probable versus guaranteed knowledge associated with math, geometry, and logical, deductive arguments. (Hume’s distinction between “matters of fact” (highly probable knowledge) and “relations of ideas” (certain knowledge).

o Origin of life question: presence of information (effect) implies a conscious designer of DNA code.

226 Relate above to “uniformitarianism,” the idea that our “present knowledge of cause and effect relationships should guide our reconstruction of what caused something to arise in the past.”

Bottom Line: “information is habitually associated with conscious activity,” but we cannot be absolutely certain about the relationship between cause and effect.

220 Francis Collins: intelligence needed “for intricate cellular apparatus,” and we need to learn “the

language in which God created life.” presence of cellular information requires a “conscious activity” (225)

225 Origin of Life Problem = Origin of Biological Information Problem

224 DNA stores information (“detailed instructions for assembling proteins”) in the “form of four-character digital code.” A, G, C, T bases.

227 “pre-biotic soup” needed for life – really no scientific evidence for it, but science treats it as if it were a “given.”

Also, problem of “cross-reactions” once the initial amino acids are formed.

54  

228 IRONY – relate to myth of Procrustes, i.e., altering facts to get them to fit into a theory: Cross reactions were removed, in order to get the desired result – is this removal a case of “intelligent design”?

Scenario #1: Random Chance now obsolete bcz. time factor and randomness don’t compute

229 Does Hamlet emerge from a scrabble bag, no matter how many times the bag is shaken: “amino acids need to be linked in a specified sequence,” like letters in a sentence.

229 Odds of them falling into place are one in 10 (with 25 zeros), for only one protein molecule, and one cell needs 300-500 protein molecules.

Scenario #2: Natural Selection

230 Richard Dawkins steep mountain/gradual mountain analogy.

230 Problem of “Pre-biological Natural Selection:” needs a “self-replicating organism to work.”

230 natural selection does not work on level of chemical evolution

Scenario #3: Chemical Affinities and Self-Ordering

233 Unlike Na + Cl, “amino acids do not demonstrate bonding affinities.” 234 “specified complexity”: irregularity specified by a set of functional requirements (i.e. information)

evidence points to these as effects of a “mind” (from guidance to sequence)

Complexity of cells: variability, irregularity, unpredictability FREE WILL 237 If information is an effect, what then is the cause?

240 mutations (i.e. punctuated equilibrium) STILL do not explain macro-evolution evolution explained as bottom-up phenomenon, but top-down phenomenon STILL cannot be explained

244 “Information is the hallmark of mind. And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we

can infer the existence of a mind that’s far greater than our own—a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who’s amazingly creative. There’s no getting around it.”

Chapter Ten “The Evidence of Consciousness”

NB: What is the definition of consciousness and how does it align itself with free will? What are the characteristics of consciousness that ostensibly parallel the qualities of a Creator?

248 consciousness subjectivity, feeling, hopes, a point of view (particularly, the first-person), self-awareness and introspection

55  

definition aligns with FREE WILL

Is consciousness generated by a structure viz. the brain? Also Parnia’s idea of brain as mechanism to manifest the mind (251)

249 dualism between brain and mind akin to distinction between body and spirit (cf. Penfield)

see Schroeder: “But with Adam, a change much more significant than a quantitative change from a medium to a super brain occurred. … We are qualitatively different from all other life” (133)

the neshama

see Schroeder (137): making of Adam (adamah, soil) vs. creating Adam (neshama, soul)

see Schroeder (138): the universe as created (something from nothing) and then made

252 duality between mind and body resolved by the role of SPIRIT (254)

254 consciousness defined: “In short, consciousness consists of sensations, thoughts, emotions, dsires, beliefs, and free choices that make us alive and aware.”

255 If physicalism is a truth, a given, then …

… only objective reality exists

… according to laws of nature, no such thing as free will (e.g. Viet Nam analogy)

… no such thing as a disembodied intermediate state (e.g. near-death experiences and dreams)

258 consciousness CAN change (e.g. brain injuries)

262 consciousness and behavior NOT the same “Consciousness is being alive; it’s what causes behavior in really conscious beings.”

263 still no way to show transition from matter to consciousness matter contains potential for mind to emerge

If mind emerges without direction or guidance from INTELLIGENCE, what then is rational and true? (265)

266 “binding problem” physical correlation of brain activity with religious experiences

267 cause effect … from brain to mind AND from mind to brain (conscious states can cause things to happen)

268 physical correlation CANNOT be equated with explanation, thus still no origin to consciousness (269)

270 cognito ergo sum, all from Creator’s mind to our own

Chapter Eleven “The Cumulative Case for a Creator”

56  

277 #1 Darwinian Hypothesis: too many leaps of faith

279 #2 Design Hypothesis: Ockham’s razor

286 Does faith come at the expense of facts? science and faith as “intellectual cousins under the skin” (Polkinghorne)

03/25/08: Discussion

What is the definition of consciousness – Where is it located?

What is the relationship of consciousness to the brain? And by extension, to the body?

What is the relationship of consciousness to free will?

What is the origin of consciousness?

03/25/08 – 03/26/08 – 03/27/08 

Summaries of Mind/Body conflicts and issues  

o Aquinas/Aristotle:  relationship of mind to brain.  

The hierarchy of the powers within the human soul, beginning with the vegetative, life‐giving powers, then sensory powers, emotive powers, and finally, spiritual powers of understanding, self‐reflection, self‐mastery (free will) and self‐determination (free will) – connections here to Strobel and Schroeder. 

Discussion of the act of knowledge, whereby the brain creates a “phantasm,” which is a material re‐presentation of the external, sensory world, through data given by the five senses. 

The spiritual, active intellect then abstracts the spiritual, universal form (Platonic, Aristotelian form) from the phantasm and the passive intellect understands the form.  “Like is known by like:” only the spiritual can understand the spiritual. 

The spiritual intellect then makes an existential judgment, that the form, which it now understands, really exists in a sensory being outside the mind (distinction between the essence/form of a being and its real existence in the external world).  

o Aquinas/Aristotle:  overcoming the Platonic/Cartesian “dualisms” of mind vs. body, through their concept of “substance,” and the idea of the human person as an “embodied spirit,” one substance with two metaphysical principles. 

 

Movement from “Faith vs. Science” to “Faith in Science” (03/27/09 – 03/31/09) 

57  

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 

5  Epistemological Foundations and Presumptions:  Normal Science:  “predicated upon the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like” 

10  ‐‐ Normal Science:  relies on “acknowledgement” of scientific community, is “unprecedented,” and “open‐ended” relative to research. 

11  ‐‐ Normal Science:  needs “shared paradigm” from which it derives standards of progress. 

5  Procrustes Revisited:  “strenuous . . . attempt to force nature into . . . conceptual boxes” 

  ‐‐ Science is hostile to, and tends to “suppress” that which would overturn its basic presuppositions. 

7  New Paradigms:  after shift occurs, “a scientist’s world is qualitatively transformed [and] qualitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory.” 

15  Advantages of Paradigms 

• “establish/create meaning” ‐‐ DEFINES WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND WILL BE! o Conflict:  objective vs. subjective:  are they, then, really objective facts, or mere 

theoretical/subjective constructions? 

• “formulate questions” 

• “select methods with which to examine questions” 

• “define areas of relevance” 

16  “No natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism.” 

Critique: 

  The word, “normal science,” is itself a truth claim, and Kuhn claims that it has 3 foci. 

1.  A paradigm dependent class of facts it will tackle, i.e., that which is generated by a point of view – it views nature as “some stuff,” rather than “some other stuff.” 

2. The effort to match facts with the theory with sufficient rigor to make predictions. 3. Empirical Articulations:  opening up further areas of problem solving to justify the 

paradigm and to specialize it, in the direction of smaller (microscopic) “facts.”  Kuhn insists that the aim of normative science is regulative in the sense of a map.  A map orients someone, and we need a map to determine what fits or what doesn’t fit. (25) 

o The aim of normal science is not novelty, new maps, but to use the existing map to solve problems.  Normal science succeeds because it is assured that a solution is possible. 

58  

o Normal science limits the objects which can appear, and it limits the types of arguments which can appear.  It is restrictive, and its role is to ensure that the paradigm and “normal science” is not easily surrendered. 

o Fruits of normal science:  By limiting inquiry into Nature, it makes possible communal agreements and thus allows one to define and practice science, without reverting to 1st principles.  Its aim is to build a body of knowledge. 

o Kuhn:  admits that a price is to be paid:  paradigms become as resistant as possible to fundamental change, and the more knowledge that is accumulated, the more trivial it becomes.  Paradigms are not correctable by normal science, for they are not self‐correcting. (92) 

Problem:  Parallel to Political Revolutions 

o The paradigm that wins is simply forced on the others.  It is something other than science that forces the change, i.e., an “extra‐scientific debate.” 

o The revolution ends in “total victory,” because at some point or other, proponents of the new model simply have to eliminate the others.  It is the force of the “sociology of knowledge.”  A “gestalt switch” (perceptual fields that change with training, for without training, perceptual fields are an illusion). 

Problem:  Matter of Approximation to Nature 

o Kuhn is telling us that the Nature out there is confusion which we cannot know.  In order for us to get a perspective, we need a paradigm.  He even claims that there is no such thing as a sense experience in which there is a neutral correspondence to nature.  Thus, even our nervous system is trained by the paradigm! 

o If one simply focuses on the rules, then they can miss the forest for the trees.  Rules are simply indicators, for the paradigm must come first. 

o Karl Popper, the originator of the theory of “verisimilitude,” claimed that all scientific claims require large amounts of empirical data, because this data enables us to judge a theory and possibly falsify it (even though this reduces science to empirical, observable events (contra Aristotle, Aquinas, et al.) 

So, even Popper would agree that science needs a “standard” outside of the mind (empirical data) to judge theories with. 

One model is better because it approaches nature better.  If something is, in principle, impossible to falsify, then one can never verify it either. 

146 But Kuhn attacks Popper’s theory of falsification, and he claims that all historically significant theories have, more or less, fit the facts (a radical claim in and of itself) – but if they have all fit the facts, then how can they be falsified (in principle)? 

Kuhn:  nature, out there, is independent of everything, and that we inherit certain paradigms through which relevant facts are selected – otherwise, we would be staring, unknowingly, at all of nature.  Science must be selective, 

59  

which is why metaphysics and history cannot be a science.  Kuhn claims that the criterion of “approximation to nature” is deceptive (not a theory for what constitutes science), because it all depends on what lens we are looking through. 

Problem:  Intellectual Discovery 

o Science seems to make the claim that the epicenter of progress is discovery, but is it not the case that normal science is quite inimical to discovery?  Is intellectual discovery already expected within a paradigm, or is it completely outside the bounds of science? 

Those who make discoveries are outside the paradigm, and are therefore outside of science.  Kuhn is accusing normal science of being a tyrant, and he compares NS to Darwin’s theory of natural selection – that is, certain paradigms select specific things that it wants to survive.  This practice permits growth and resists change, for it is really the “survival of the fittest.” 

 

04/01/09

Lecture Notes on The Context of The Prestige (2006)

The Victorian Era (Queen Victoria and her reign, 1837-1901)

*period of dramatic, historical, and rapid changes that shaped human subjects and their interactions with the material, physical world

*seeming period of optimism masked an unseemly ugliness and anxiety

e.g. antagonism throughout and within (e.g. colonialist endeavors, political movements [unionization, feminism, Oxford movement, Darwinism], class anxieties [working class and the bourgeoisie], scientific/medical/technological advancements, public reputations [i.e. “prestige” and “virtuoso masculinity”]) the progress of the nation

*anticipation of modern problems with modern solutions of 20th-century

*thus, a period of INVENTION and “the new”

A Shift in Approach to the Sciences

*from: a balance between philosophical approaches and scientific observations (i.e. theory with experimentation)

60  

*to: a process more mechanistic and empirical, reliant upon mathematics

*thus, systematic experimentation replaced Aristotelian approaches

*human intellect can emulate the wisdom of God “objective certainty”

*shift from an inherent mistrusting of human perception to privileging of it

*last stages of scientific revolution visible in chemistry & biology in the 19th-century

Electricity … the most exciting and the most abstract of the new sciences

*1672: Otto von Guericke electricity generation by a human being

*1729: Stephen Gray electrical transmission through metal filaments

*1749: Benjamin Franklin lightning as electricity

*“a source of power for mankind” “The War of Currents”

*Nikolas Tesla (1856-1943) vs. Thomas Edison (1847-1931)

*Edison (practical, political He experimented.): phonograph, incandescent light bulb, cement-making technology, electric power generating systems Direct Current and General Electric (U.S. base)

*Tesla (visionary, eccentric He theorized.): radio, fluorescent lamp, electric-powered automobile Alternating Current and Westinghouse (international base)

*1915: Nobel Peace Prize in Physics Neither Edison nor Tesla accepted it.

*Tesla: the capability to harness the Earth’s magnetic field and other things?

In homage to Tesla (1917), Behrend paraphrase of Alexander Pope in reference to Isaac Newton: “Nature and nature’s laws lay hid by night. God said, ‘Let Tesla be’ and all was light.”

Christopher Priest and The Prestige (1996, 2006)

b. 1943

*prolific writer of science fiction

*The Prestige (1996): World Fantasy Award and James Tait Black Memorial Prize

*magic and its two aspects: “obsessive jealousy” and “obsessive secrecy”

Comment [IT1]: “hit and miss” 

Comment [IT2]: “the possibility of the not‐yet” 

Comment [IT3]: photographic memory   “picture‐thinking” … WIRELESS (fiasco: Broadcast Tower with backing of J.P. Morgan 

Comment [IT4]: twins …  

61  

*a world of compulsion for the magician and the audience member

*“the gaslight-and-velvet world of Victorian music halls”

late 19th- to early 20th-century increasing Western industrialization

*tropes of mad scientist a lá Frankenstein and magician collapse ability to bend laws of nature

*magic: tests limits of rationality but assumes only ONE WAY for trick to work

*magician, ancient to Medieval: seeming ability to control natural forces with supernatural powers; thus, magician has a hidden relationship with the universe (16th-century)

*magician, Victorian to contemporary: use of devices to aid in illusion (19th-century as the age of technical magic); thus, magician forges relationship with the audience one of bafflement (i.e. we cannot believe our senses of perception, and we have no explanation for it; thus, ANXIETY and UNCERTAINTY) truth vs. appearance of it

optical devices, electromagnets, forms of stage lighting

*How are the tricks done? (i.e. What are their methods?)

*magic: sleights of hand (prestidigitation or léger de main), misdirection, collusion with audience member, apparatus

*Alfred Borden: “The Transported Man” and “The New Transported Man” seemingly defies physics and no visible evidence for how trick works

*Rupert Angier: “In a Flash” (magic with Tesla)

KEY QUOTATION (34):

Secrecy and the Appreciation of Secrecy

The Pact of Acquiescent Sorcery

THREE STAGES OF ILLUSION (64):

the setup: the nature of illusion suggested and/or explained

the performance: the display of magic

the prestige: the effect or product of magic

Comment [IT5]: Handout from The Prestige 

62  

CATEGORIES OF TRICKS (65):

production: riff on ex nihilo

disappearance

transformation: riff on “the philosopher’s stone”

transposition

defiance of natural laws: riff on law of gravity, for example

secret motive power: riff on Newton’s inertia

04/02/09 – 04/03/09 

 

Social Justice – What is it? Why teach it? – Christoper D. Merrett 

 

93  On John Updike’s claim that there is a gap between the high ideals of justice and human reality: 

simply because the proponents of high ideals are hypocritical, does that mean the ideals themselves are necessarily flawed? 

93  Two alternatives for teachers:  1) “Offer uncritical, neutral education” or 2) “empower students to question dominant ideas.” 

94  Do we need to justification for a discussion about justice?  Perhaps it should be understood as self‐evident (cf. Aristotle). 

  ‐‐ what marks an idea as a “progressive idea” 

94  Four components of a definition of justice:  1) “equal worth of all citizens” 2) all should be able to “meet basic needs of income, shelter, and other necessities” 3) “self‐respect demands opportunities and life chances” 4) “unjust inequalities should be reduced/eliminated.” 

94  Declaration of Independence:  “Right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”.  Only the pursuit, not happiness itself. 

  ‐‐ distinction between procedural justice and distributional justice, between positive freedoms and negative freedoms. 

63  

94‐95  ‐‐ distributional justice includes “redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, regulated markets, and extensive welfare state” (Aristotle/Aquinas:  Is this method giving to each what they deserve?) 

95  Seeming Paradox:  We need to respect the rights of others “in order to enjoy our own individual rights.” 

95  Four arguments against the alleged “predominance of individual rights” in favor of social justice: 

  1) New Testament version of Golden Rule:  “Love your neighbor as yourself” 

  2) More self‐interested take on social justice:  the more social justice there is, the greater the economic growth of a country. (96) 

  3) Legal Declarations advocating social justice:  Declaration of Independence, UN Declaration of human rights, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, French Proclamation of the Rights of Man (dubious). 

  4) Political argument for distributive justice:  society should not head toward a Gilded Age, “where business interests trump all others”  

  ‐‐ undermines faith in a democracy 

96  Democracy is a process, “a beckoning goal,” not a final state of affairs. 

  ‐‐ what if gender‐based education benefits both genders – is it still unjust? 

 

4/2 – 4/3 Discussion Questions: 

   

A Paradigm for Social Justice among College Students (Begin with Merrett, then Broido, and last, Wade)

How is knowledge defined?

Strengths and/or Weaknesses

How is social justice defined?

Does it make sense? Why or why not?

What are the authors’ methodologies?

Sound or not?

What are the key points?

Ideas not developed enough and/or missing?

Are they reasonable?

64  

What are the key steps?

Steps (How to’s) not developed enough and/or missing?

Are they reasonable?

What is the paradigm for social justice? How do you respond to it as college students?

Overall Critique:

Initial Reactions?

didacticism: Are we trying to turn students into allies, activists, “bleeding heart liberals”?

Informed Responses?

Do these articles avoid framing it with notions of free will, consciousness, and even the soul? Is the lack of framework somewhat disconcerting?

Is the lack of this framework and its terminology a symptom of secularizing social justice, unhinging it from its more spiritual roots? Is this a problem?

Do students truly read, think, and talk in these ways? Should they? Why or why not? In what spaces?

What kinds of things need to happen on a campus to initiate these discussions? In what ways?

What are the problems in initiating and sustaining these discussions?

What are the benefits in initiating and sustaining these discussions?

04/06/09 

Notes from Selections from The Psychology of Resolving Conflicts:

Paul B. Pedersen’s “The Cultural Constructions of Conflict and Peace”

21 Thesis: “monocultural alternatives” have not worked, “and have led to escalating world conflicts”

GOAL: “CHANGE OUR ENEMIES INTO ALLIES” -- perhaps a modification of the Christian ideal (“love your enemy, do good to them that hurt you”):

21 3 themes en route to peace

• showing alternatives to Western forms of aggression and warfare • understanding the importance of “culture” • providing a repertoire of alternatives to violence

22 Current Paradigm: seems to involve resentment toward wealth, prosperity, and self-interest in general? Wealth as cause of conflicts, and the cause, as well, of the “environmental crisis.

65  

22 “killer thoughts” follow NORM OF SELF-INTEREST … “self” is a Western construct (23)

22 Current Paradigm: Defines the concept of a “functioning government” and criticizes those which do not conform to the ideals proclaimed by the “community of nations.”

-- Problem is the same as the scientific revolutions: just because the “community of nations have agreed that these are the ideals, there is no “transcendent standard” with which to judge these communal agreements. Do you agree/disagree?

23 Current Paradigm: That the current iteration of U.S. Democracy is the answer. Why does the current paradigm proclaim democracy to be the ideal? Might Plato and Aristotle have objections to the concept of democracy as the ideal form of government?

23-25 Current Paradigm: “the science of conflict management seems to be moving toward Asian models (“High Context Culture”). This paradigm appears to exalt the value of the “collective” good over the importance of “individualistic” concerns (See chart on page 25). Would Aquinas agree with this ideal?

-- is the “self” an Aristotelian thing or “substance” or is it more of a Humean/Buddhist, relational entity?

23 U.S. Democracy or rhetoric of democracy not always the answer

process of “disentangling” or “straightening”

26 de-emphasize “the discovery of objective knowledge” and emphasize “the discovery of spiritual interconnectedness” false dichotomy here or not?

Paradigm-Equivalent: The Relativity associated with a culture-centered approach to conflict management: again, no external “standard,” there is only cultural consensus, which is another democratic ideal.

29 Paradigm saturated with Subjectivism and Relativity: “Conflict and peace are cultural constructions in the minds of people so that managing conflict requires managing people’s attitudes about conflict and peace.”

• no limitations • recognition of complexity • variety of alternatives • principle of “common ground” (see definition page 28)

27 perceptions of self contingent upon culture’s dynamics and processes

28 Summary of major causes of conflict: “incompatible religious belief, cultural values, disparities in wealth/natural resources, technology, etc.

28 governments ignore role of CULTURE and its implications

30 ARIA: Antagonism, Resonance, Invention, and Action

“Consensus goes beyond compromise, acceptance and agreement, or any external enforcement but presumes a convergence of individuals where each party is confident and voluntarily cooperates to a limited extent with the other”

66  

31, 32 grids: Cultural Grid, Intrapersonal, Interpersonal

32 differences must be revealed, cannot be ignored or undiscovered

33 list of new paradigms (7 elements):

• understanding context (i.e. no such thing as objective) • predicting consequences beyond causation (i.e. back to theorizing?) • seeking social significance • valuing language and discourse • perceiving holistic perspectives • discerning particulars and interactions • favoring subjectively derived meanings

NB: Would consensus broach that which is objective?

33 definition of peace (Rabbie): “the least application of violence and coercion to the individual human being and to the freedom of access of the individual to cherished values”

James Waller’s “Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing”

89 war as an act of “de-creation”

91 thesis “to know a little less and understand a little more”

groupthink as double-edged negatives and positive

Thesis: “. . . my central argument . . . it is ordinary individuals, like you and me, who commit extraordinary evil.”

Relationship of Individual Good to the Common Good: “In short, it is not the nature of the collective that limits our possibility for cooperative, caring, nonviolent relations; it is the nature of the individuals that make up the collective”

(Christopher Browning): What are the universal aspects of human nature that transcend the cognition and culture of ordinary (fill in the blank of culture groups)?

91 Characteristics of the “mob mentality” that “encourage the abandonment of the individual self.”

-- “it is the mechanism of group experience that potentiates, legitimates, operationalizes . . . the emergence of man’s . . . often unsavory selves.”

92 To Be Is To Be In Relation: Some positive qualities of group (mob) mentality. For example, groups “can . . . provide the security to oppose potentially destructive ideas and practices.”

92 Ideas Have Consequences: individual evil derives from the “national character,” which in turn, is derived from a theoretical ideology.

67  

-- Evil has a law of its own: once the ideology was consented to, the ordinary Germans became “heirs to this shared belief,” and they went on to participate in the Holocaust because they wanted to.

-- ideas, rooted in the ideology, transformed the existing inclinations/wants into ideological desires (with the “appearance of rationality”) which mirrored the original ideology.

93 There is “nothing new under the Sun,” for the extraordinary capacity for evil may be more ordinary than we think.

-- perhaps there is a universal constant in human nature (a timeless, eternal, Platonic Form), or, a universal Platonic Form of Humanity, that transcends culture, just as the ideals of Justice, Friendship, etc., appear to transcend culture.

94 seek cause in context rather than psychology

100 shaping responses to authority: ethnocentrism, xenophobia, desire for social dominance natural selection

101 identities and personalities of perpetrators: cultural belief systems, moral disengagement, rational self-interest

101 culture of cruelty: professional socialization, binding group factors, merger between role and person

102 social death of victims: us-them thinking, dehumanization of victims, blaming of victims

102 actor “the impact of what we are upon whom we are”

importance of cooperative, peaceful goals and build on them

104 self-interest in a more global way (offense against one is offense against many)

context of action ”prevent development of culture of cruelty”

105 producing more individualized perceptions of others; fostering personalized interactions; engaging in activities to achieve common goals; redefining group properties

Notes from Contemporary Conflict Resolution:

From “Ending Violent Conflict”

160 peace agreements low at end of conflicts Why? And, what constitutes the end of a war?

161 destructive processes and vested interests akin to lower appetites

peace as loss of role or status akin to ego

162 sense of proportion in role of negotiator

163 5 generic transformers of protracted conflict:

68  

context transformation (local and global)

structural transformation (empowerment and dissociation)

actor transformation akin to paradigm shift on broader scale

• redefine directions

• abandon/modify cherished goals

• adopt radically different perspectives

issue transformation

• changes in position

164 personal/group transformation

• not necessarily benign

• entanglement (enredado)

165 “the willingness of conflicting parties … to consider a negotiated agreement”

166 “hurting stalemate” … “imminent mutual catastrophe” … “enticing opportunity”

• necessity for recognition and dialogue

167 negotiations may not be “successful” Cyprus (akin to King Solomon’s “solution”)

“ripeness” defined

168 multi-track diplomacy COORDINATION

• impartial/partial

• coercive/non-coercive

• state-based/non-state based

• outsiders/insiders

170 role of NGOs: skills and relationships with indigenous traditions need for knowledge about traditions of cultures

172 definitions of turning and sticking points … role of TRUST (173)

175 integrative approaches and good settlements “Good settlements should not only bridge the opposing interests, but also represent norms and values that are public goods for the wider community in which the conflict is situated. Quite clearly, justice and fairness are crucial attributes for negotiations” (and yet, “outcomes are expected to meet wider criteria than those that might have been accepted in bargains between sovereign groups At the same time, the criteria of justice have become more contested”)

177 e.g. South Africa: conflict resolution from within

69  

181 e.g. Israel/Palestine: conflict resolution from throughout … still unresolved!

From the “Introduction”

3 history of conflict resolution (from the Cold War) as interdisciplinary conflict of scholarship vs. praxis

8 mutual encounter between Western and non-Western

9 Johan Galtang: triangulation of contradiction, attitude, and behavior

10 hourglass: containment, settlement, and transformation

13 conflict: “a matter of habit [change of responses] and choice [intellectual ones]”

allegory: Cain vs. Abel

13 levels of concern: Self and Other

• yield: concern of other more than self

• withdraw: low concern of other and self

• balance: accommodation and comprise

• *high regard for self and other

15 lose-lose as common outcome

win-lose as zero-sum6

*work towards “non-zero-sum” conflict

17 thinking individually, low gains; thinking collectively, higher gains (the elusive win-win situation)

“Natural selection favors cooperation” vs. Darwin’s theory of natural selection “evolution of cooperation”

18 rhetoric of need in a “good” way potentially satisfying to all sides

20 role of third party

threat power (hard): to command, order, enforce

exchange and integrative power (soft): to induce cooperation, legitimize, to inspire

27 conflict: “pursuit of incompatible goals by different groups”

28 conflict: armed, violent/deadly, and contemporary

29 key terms: conflict settlement, conflict containment, conflict management, conflict resolution, conflict transformation; negotiation (mediation); conciliation/facilitation (problem-solving); reconciliation

Notes on Ellen M. Broido’s “The Development of Social Justice Allies during College”

70  

3 history of student efforts towards “more just and equitable societies”

purpose: to examine students’ development into social justice allies

4 5 facets of literary reviews: attitudes towards socially targeted groups; models of attitude change; theories of participation in social activism; models of development of altruism; models of ally development

role of “like-minded” peers of high importance like gravitates to like … But, what of negative and positive peer qualities?

high level of moral reasoning to critique and act out against (unjust, inequitable norms)

high level of epistemological development (i.e. knowledge) … de-emphasized to emphasize significance of

the subjective towards the outcome of understanding role in “fighting oppression”

5 construction of realities based on perceptions tension between seeking objective and privileging subjective forms of knowledge (see page 12)

5-6 methodology broken down as a means of setting up credibility (i.e. knowledge base): participants as privileged; data collection vis-à-vis interviews; data analysis through inductive coding technique

7 content across 9 categories see table (!) from existence of oppression and sense of own privilege to importance of action

8 perspective-taking making meaning (again, emphasis on subjectivity) … towards higher consciousness (10)

high level of awareness of students at PSU not across the different college campuses and not of this time (study published in 2000, a long 8-9 years in-between)

9 role of classroom content … potential problems with curriculum conflicts

12 “However, knowledge was not in and of itself sufficient for the participants to acts as allies”

definition of “self-confidence”: in reference to “comfort with one’s identity and internal loci of worth and approval” … (reconsideration of word “self”)

13 importance in clarifying own beliefs and values

14 KEY TABLE: tracking steps in becoming an ally

15 role of student affairs in shaping student experiences and perhaps connecting with faculty

key questions for students en route to being allies

Notes on Rahina Wade’s “Citizenship for Social Justice”

65 role of teachers (in K-12) for shaping students into “good” citizens … What could it look like in higher education? What does it need to look like in higher education? What can it look like in higher education?

71  

definition of “social justice”: Aristotle’s just society as one “whose benefits and burdens would be distributed fairly to achieve a basic level of goodness for all”

(Adams et. al. 1997) “a socially just society as one in which all members have their basic needs met and all individuals are physically and psychological safe and secure, able to develop to their full capabilities and to participate as effective citizens of their communities and nation”

Checklist for a Social Justice Education

• student-centered

• collaborative

• experiential

• intellectual

• analytical

• multicultural

• value-based

• activist

NB: What words resonate positively? What words set off alarms? Why? Is there a problem with the emphasis on the subjective? How does the everyday look in a classroom, and in what kinds of classes?

04/08/09

Notes on Eidelsons’ “Dangerous Ideas”

182 5 belief domains that trigger or constrain conflict

• superiority

• injustice

• vulnerability

• distrust

• helplessness

Similarities to Waller’s Thesis: alignment of core (individual) beliefs with collective worldviews

MIND as “dangerous force” “with capabilities to categorize, interpret, and go ‘beyond the information given’” … stereotyping and dehumanizing as two results, thus, beliefs may distort and indicate biases

183 Similarities to Waller’s Thesis -- another negative effect of cultural relativism (mob mentality): “culturally organized macro-thoughts”: similar experiences and socialization processes all underneath “full consciousness” … “they [beliefs] enjoy a presumption of truth and cease to be routinely evaluated by the group”

184 evaluation to evaluate their paradigm of worldviews:

• promotion of peace and stability

72  

• preservation of individual rights and freedoms

• promotion of justice between groups

*SUPERIORITY (individual): “better than other people” and thus no empathy, no compromise

-- Logical Fallacy of Relevance (ad populum – “snob appeal” starts on a small scale, on the level of individuals): the mistaken belief that the adoption of certain ideas/experiences guarantees superiority over those who do not adopt these ideas, and over those who are not privy to these experiences.

• specialness

• deservingness

• entitlement

*SUPERIORITY (collective)

-- Logical Fallacy of Relevance (ad populum – individual “snob appeal” leads to large scale “snob appeal”): the mistaken belief that the adoption of certain ideas/cultural practices guarantees the superiority of the group over other groups/cultures which are “unenlightened.”

• chosenness

• entitlement

• special destiny

*self-glorifying myths “chosen glories” (lead to “nationalism”)

185 *INJUSTICE (individual): “perceived mistreatment by specific others or by the world at large”

-- Logical Fallacy of Relevance (“appeal to pity,” starts on a small scale, on the level of individuals): the mistaken belief that perceived injustices towards individuals grants the right to take action against those who might perpetrate similar actions in the future, or against those who did not experience similar “injustices.”

distinction between unfair and unfortunate: possible outcome as inappropriate engagement in retaliatory acts from legitimate grievances

*INJUSTICE (collective): high identification and allegiances that individuals feel toward group

-- Logical Fallacy of Relevance (“appeal to pity,” on a large scale, on the collective level): the mistaken belief that perceived injustices towards an entire culture grants the right to take action against those cultures who might perpetrate similar actions in the future, or against those cultures which did not experience similar “injustices.”

*self-whitewashing and other-maligning myths “chosen traumas” (from subjective distortions)

186 *VULNERABILITY (individual): person’s conviction that s/he perpetually in harm’s way.

73  

-- Logical Fallacy of Relevance (“appeal to fear,” starts on a small scale, on the level of individuals): the mistaken belief that the possibility of future acts of aggression against individuals grants the right to take action against those who might perpetrate these acts of aggression, or against those who do not share these fears.

-- comment: just because you are paranoid, does not mean that someone is not after you (author unknown).

*VULNERABILITY (collective): fear of future (real and/or perceived)

-- Logical Fallacy of Relevance (“appeal to fear,” on a large scale, at the societal level): the mistaken belief that the possibility of future acts of aggression against culture grants the right to take action against those cultures/nations which might perpetrate these acts of aggression, or against those cultures/nations which do not share these fears.

“the inexorable logic of inevitability” impetus to act aggressively to ensure own safety

187 The irrelevant appeal to fear (as described above) would also apply to the phenomena of individual and collective “distrust,” as described below.

*DISTRUST (individual): presumed hostility and malign intent of others

*DISTRUST (collective) dishonest and untrustworthy (similar to collective paranoia)

*HELPLESSNESS (individual): “conviction that even carefully planned and executed actions will fail to produce desired outcome”

• disjuncture between effort and reward

• distorted proportion or objective reality?

• no resilience

*HELPLESSNESS (collective): powerlessness and dependency

189 “broad brush simplification”

zero-sum aspects of competition parallels symbolic demands of group prestige and glorification of one group’s identity (at expense of Other)

190 WHAT IS AT STAKE? … the alignment of worldviews between two groups “might serve to exacerbate or moderate the potential for violence”

04/15/09

Notes on “Understanding Contemporary Conflict”

74  

78 “adequate conflict analysis” for “normative conflict resolution”

79 nature of conflict:

Machiavelli: desire for self-preservation and power

Hobbes: competition for gain, fear of insecurity, defense of honour

Hume: relative scarcity of resources and limited altruism

Rousseau: “the social state”

80 (Holsti) internal (i.e. interstate) conflicts of 20th-century: statehood, governance, role and status of nations and communities

Historical turning points: emergence of sovereign dynastic state (Medieval and Renaissance), emergence of popular sovereignty and national self-determination (18th-19th-centuries), bipolar stand-off (post-1945)

83 previous correlates for interstate conflict incorrect (i.e. paradigm wrong)

86 disjunction between state and society (colonial legacies imposed by European states)

Basic rights: security, subsistence, freedom

Need deprivation correlates with social conflict

Government: satisfaction and/or frustration of individual and group needs

88 KEY justification for discriminatory practices and policies as well as legitimate atrocities

92 stability of power structures “zones of war” and “zones of peace”

94 greed vs. grievance; shift in terminology from “greed” to “economic agenda”

101 state as key mediator between forces of globalization (international pressures) and fragmentation (domestic discontent)

Notes on “What the Heck Is ‘Social Justice’?”

37 definition of charity: basic sense of generosity and goodwill toward others

individual charity: (immediate) responses to needs of others

social charity effects of social sins

social justice causes of social sins

false duality here (Archbishop Hélder Câmara as well as Jesus’ examples)

paradigm of problem-solving: listen and observe; consider context; take action

Notes on “Defining Social Justice in a Socially Unjust World”

75  

343 conflicting definitions of social justice contingent upon “subject positions” (e.g. religion, political affiliations)

Invocation of Plato’s and Aristotle’s definitions of justice

344 shift from sacred to secular forms of justice with paradigm shifts of thought (e.g. scientific revolution, political upheavals in United States and France); connection between social justice and happiness

345 equality in terms of distributive justice

Rawls: “the difference principle” (invocation of postmodern principles of power, privilege, oppression)

346 confluence of liberalism and socialism: preservation of individual human rights and human dignity

maximin theory: Fundamental rights and duties < -- > fundamental rights and duties with economic opportunities and social conditions

“principle of redress” (e.g. affirmative action) redistribution of resources for disadvantaged populations from historic divisions

paradox: justice in the context of injustice

349 continuum from individual to community hegemony

350 table for policy development

(Bertha Reynolds) “belonging”; “retaining humanity”; “mutuality”; “no strings attached”

*call to (re)connect social justice with human rights

Notes on Howard Zinn’s “The Colorado Strike, 1913-1914”

8 class struggle and key players in struggle

9 beauty of landscape and ugliness of squalor (appeal to poetics)

10 multicultural landscape (mostly immigrant populations)

correlation between strong political power, strong economic power

12 conflict between workers and management (initially); unions: UMW, IWW, Socialist Party

14 spark of violence with Gerald Lippiatt

16 labor convention “rank-and-file miners”

18 enter: Mother Jones

21 the Ludlow encampment/colony

22 enter: the U.S. Department of Labor

24 “the voice of the gun”

76  

25 corporations: allies in the government and the press

27 enter: the National Guardsman caught between domestic tyranny of private corporations and anti-war sentiment (43)

32 violence against women

40 background of Mexico and U.S. relations (oil)

42 enter: President Woodrow Wilson and rhetoric of “the benefit of mankind”

48 from general court martials to exonerations

51 Rockefeller’s public machinations

53 invocation of Constitution by Mother Jones

54 popular culture discourse

04/16/09

An assessment of Tom Tyler’s metaphysical stance on the ideal of Justice in his article, “Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure” in, The International Journal of Psychology, 35 (2), 2000.

Justice as the “oil” of societal relationships

• Overview: Tom Tyler argues, “justice is akin to the oil within an engine. It allows the many parts within the engine to interact without the friction that generates heat and leads to breakdown.”

• Social justice allows for “productive” (useful?) interactions between groups and between individuals.

• If something is “useful,” then it must be “good.”

• Do you agree?

• Would Plato agree?

The Ideal of Justice: A Human Creation, A Democratic Consensus?

Tyler claims that the concept of social justice “exists only in the minds of the members of an ongoing interaction, a group, an organization, or a society. . . . Justice is a socially created concept that, unlike oil, has no physical reality.”

Do you agree?

Would Plato agree? Why does everyone, it seems, have a concept of fairness or justice?

“DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:” WHAT IS “RIGHT” VS. WHAT IS IN MY SELF-INTEREST

77  

• Do people accept less than what they want/desire, as long as it is perceived as a “fair share”?

• Are rules, in society, good in so far as they are “effective” in resolving conflicts?

• Would Plato agree?

“Distributive Justice”: Whether altruism is related to the ideal of justice . . .

Are ethical “responses to the disadvantaged” based upon self-interest at all?

Besides the ideal of justice, what other motivations are there for “pro-social actions”?

Procedural Justice: Criteria for Instantiating the Ideal of Justice

Questions to ask:

Are there “equal opportunities to participate”?

Are the “authorities neutral”?

Do the people trust the “motives of the authorities”?

Are the “people treated with dignity and respect”?

Are the individual parts of the group helping the whole?

Are they sharing the costs and benefits equally – is it voluntary, or are there incentives given, and/or the threat of punishments?

Do “fair-decision making procedures . . . encourage people to voluntarily help the group?”

Ultimately, are fair procedures “less costly”?

Other Benefits of Procedural Justice

“Efficiency and effectiveness of rules and authorities is enhanced when group members are willing to voluntarily support the empowerment of authorities and to willingly defer to the decisions of those authorities and to follow social rules.”

Willingness to help others and to accept policies (e.g., redistribution) is enhanced when people observe just procedures, even though it will cost them.

Authorities are increasingly viewed as legitimate when people observe fair procedures.

04/16/09:  Questions for Individual/Group Work 

78  

 

1. Regarding “procedural justice,” what are some of the criteria for instantiating the ideal of justice?  For example, are there “equal opportunities to participate”?  Are the “authorities neutral”?    

 

 2. What are some of the other benefits of procedural justice not already mentioned? 

 

 

 

 

Gen Ed 202 Coal Mine Unit: Correlation Exercise [Part One of Three Parts for Presentation]

To conduct effective research and understand the research process:

Conduct background research …

• on mines in area of what their research questions broach • from governmental agency reports • from accident statistic websites (regarding different work environments) • from training and/or work experiences (regarding likelihood of incidents)

To understand correlation:

Formulate research questions and find out what kinds of things can be correlated

To formulate hypothesis:

Present experimental hypothesis of one correlation based on data found via research

To analyze/critique hypothesis:

Find ONE article that supports or refutes their experimental hypothesis

Summary of main ideas with article thesis statement

Critique/Assessment of thesis statement and overall argument

79  

DUE (the week of presentations): THREE-FOUR pages

• Background Research Section • Research Questions Section • Experimental Hypothesis Section • Analysis/Critique of Hypothesis Section

Gen Ed 202 Coal Mine/Social Justice Unit:

Correlation Exercise [Parts Two-Three of Presentation]

Part Two:

To formulate possible correlations:

• family income and political affiliation • political affiliation and age • years in school and years in leadership roles • gender and leadership roles • leadership roles: on- or off-campus • years in school and attendance in social-issue events • family participation in community events and political affiliation • [generate own correlations]

To formulate survey questions to gather data based on selected correlation

To formulate experimental hypothesis based on selected correlation

To analyze/critique data from survey questions:

• test validity of experimental hypothesis • extrapolate connections between data and social justice issues

DUE (the week of presentations): TWO pages

• Possible Correlations Section • Survey Questions Section • Experimental Hypothesis Section • Analysis/Critique of Hypothesis Section

Part Three:

80  

Paper Assignment: Present a Socratic Dialogue that articulates the individual positions articulated in the surveys and use that dialogue to explore the conflicts illustrated in the survey responses and come to a rational resolution to the conflicts embedded therein.

DUE (the week of presentations): ONE-TWO pages

04/21/09

Name __________________________________

General Education 202: Individual, Society, and Conflict Questions for Matewan [Part One]

Who are the main characters in this film? What beliefs and values do they possess? What different principles do they uphold? How do those principles reflect the ways in which the U.S. represents itself a “democracy”? And, in what ways do these characters and their belief systems come into conflict? [Follow Zinn’s case study of the Ludlow Massacre in 1913-1914 with the key players being the miners, the union members (e.g. Mother Jones), the management (e.g. executive officers of CF & I), the industry owners (i.e. John D. Rockefeller, Jr.), and the different levels of government (i.e. Governor Ammons, the Federal Industrial Relations Committee, and President Woodrow Wilson).]

According to the key characters in this film, what are the purposes of the union? Why are specific characters open or resistant to joining the union? How does the union come to reflect or refract certain principles of the U.S. as a democracy? Also consider the rise of socialism in the United States, as embodied by the union members and organizers in this film, and the ways in which political ideologies augment the conflict between the union, the coal company, and the different levels of law enforcement and government (local, state, and federal).

How are religion and religious beliefs represented in this film? Are the underlying principles of religion and the union quite similar and/or irreducibly different?

81  

What are the major conflicts brewing throughout the first part of this film? How do think these conflicts will inevitably be resolved throughout the second half of the film? (Don’t aim for the easy, “They die,” even though this anticipated ending may indeed be accurate. Aim for specific ideas for how these conflicts may come to a climax and then a denouement, or a series of denouements.)

Name __________________________________ 21 April 2009

General Education 202: Individual, Society, and Conflict Questions for Matewan [Part Two]

From the Introduction to Contemporary Conflict Resolution, the editors outline levels of concern between the Self and the Other (yield: concern of other more than self); withdraw: low concern for other and self; balance: accommodation and compromise; and last, high regard for self and other. These different levels of concern then potentially yield outcomes from a lose-lose situation (the most common outcome), a win-lose situation (zero-sum6), and the elusive win-win outcome. In what particular moments in this film do the characters represent the specific levels of concern between Self and Other, and how do these levels of concern, thus, yield specific outcomes?

From the Eidelsons’ article, “Dangerous Ideas,” and their schema of five belief domains and Waller’s book chapter, “Becoming Evil” (from The Psychology of Resolving Conflicts), what are the “dangerous ideas” that particular characters come to believe about themselves and others? And, how can we come to understand how particular characters become good and/or evil?

In his book chapter, “The Cultural Constructions of Conflict and Peace” (from The Psychology of Resolving Conflicts), Pedersen offers a list of seven elements to open dialogue and bridge disparate perspectives: understanding context; predicting consequences beyond causation; seeking social significance; valuing language and discourse; perceiving holistic perspectives; discerning particulars and interactions; and favoring subjectively derived meanings (33). Pedersen offers a definition of peace that emphasizes “the least application of violence and coercion to the individual human being and to the freedom of access of the individual to cherished values” (33). Does this new paradigm of seven elements offer viable alternatives to resolving conflict through violence? In what ways, could the ending of this film (and other coal mine conflicts) been avoided and/or resolved in more peaceful ways?

82