The Genius of George Orwell...

Not too long ago I read 1984 by George Orwell, and the book was just scary prophetic.  At first I read it thinking, "wow, that's really good" but at some point I turned a page and thought, "okay, this is just too right on, and this isn't funny anymore!"

Quite profoundly, Orwell was looking at trends in 1948 and making predictions about the future.  Watching government control grow through the degradation of individuals and their individual freedom in his own time, Orwell understood the mechanisms a control state would have in place to oppress its people with impunity.

Cover for 1984

One of the most frightening of these mechanisms in 1984 was the party slogan "Freedom is Slavery."  At first I was confused as to how people actually applied this in our society today (the other two slogans, "War is Peace" and "Ignorance is Strength" aren't too hard to understand how they apply), but what this slogan is saying is actually cunning as all get-out.

It says to the masses, "Instead of being truly free, you people are merely free to be enslaved.  Whatever it is that enslaves you, wherever you find a lack of self-control within yourself, you are now free to give yourself over to that lack of self-control and/or to whatever else it is that binds you.  You are now free to be a slave to that thing that holds you back from becoming a truly powerful person."

Once I understood this slogan in Orwell's world, I saw it everywhere in mine.  This is now a battle cry in our society.  Basically people are finding themselves enslaved to all sorts of bad habits, lifestyles or character faults.  Rather than say, "I want to be free and will do anything to be free from this oppression in my life" people are saying things like "I want to be free to be a slave or at least live like one.  Leave me alone and give me the freedom to not have to change or bear any responsibility for doing so."

In so doing they are declaring in unwitting fashion "Freedom is Slavery" right along with Orwell's dystopia.

Toxic Charity (Book Review)

I just recently read this excellent book, and I thought it was so impactful to my thinking that I've decided to recommend it to nearly every person I know.  I bought it because I was searching for how to do a better job at giving to the poor.  I know Jesus says, "Give to all who ask" but I was deeply troubled by the fact that outright giving to some would be tantamount to enabling.  That said, I feel I got an answer through my reading of Toxic Charity, but I also got a lot more than I bargained for.  (My conclusion was pretty basic, give to all who ask, but be careful what you give).

Lupton's thesis states that charity, without building self-reliance into people, builds dependency that results in people (and their surrounding cultures) to gradually become worse off and poorer than they would have been without the aid.  Instead of freely giving all the time, there should be a gradual transition from dependency to development in people.

A Few Eye-Openers: 

1. Africa, after receiving over 1 TRILLION in foreign aid is poorer and less literate, with a stagnated life expectancy.  

2. Lupton shares a personal anecdote about an inner city dad basically being emasculated when "charity tree" givers show up with free presents at Christmas. Why?  Because it's shameful to him as a man that he can't provide for his family.

3. Local mosquito net companies in Africa going out of business because so many are given away by Westerners. 

4. A Nicaraguan pastor's irritation with missionaries that are "...turning [his] people into beggars." 

It's not all about the problems though.  Perhaps the best thing about the book is that the author, Lupton, who has over 40 years of experience working with the urban poor, doesn't just whine and complain about toxic charity-he also offers viable solutions so as to create life-giving charity on both a large and small scale.  

One WARNING I would give about reading this book: you've got to read the whole thing to understand Lupton's argument.  I kind of felt that he was pretty one-sided for 3/4ths of the book, but in the final quarter he balances out his argument to be very redemptive of the practices we currently have in many charitable organizations.  

The Point of the Journey

Sometimes when we look ahead at what we're called to do, we can look up and down the "mountain" of our calling and say, "I'll never make it, that summit is just too high for me!"

Based off of where you are and your current perspective, chances are that you are accurate.

Right now, you probably don't have the muscles, discipline and dexterity needed to climb the mountain ahead of you.




But that's precisely why you've got to start climbing.  

Once you start moving, you begin to strengthen your lungs, your legs and your resolve.  You stretch and reach further and become more flexible as you go.  Even your grip becomes tenacious as each and every finger gets stronger and tougher.  You learn how to navigate the tricky spots so that you no longer get stuck at places you once consider impasses.  Long reaches that once took you hours to figure out (or things you even had to move around) now become simple exercises that you've done hundreds of times before.  By the time you reach the summit, you'll be as tough and nimble as a mountain goat-completely agreeable to living at the top.

In short, the point of having to take the journey to where you are going is to make you ready to abide in the place where you'll be staying.

So take heart and begin your long journey at the base of the mountain you are meant to conquer.

Reading Confession.

Doesn't this look SO much more inviting
to read with the photo on the front?  

I have a confession to make… (but it’s not really a good confession because I have a defense for this so-called confession after I make it)…  My confession is that I read a lot of books with pictures in them.  In fact, I probably read as many books with pictures as I do books without pictures.  I’ve practically gotten a second education off of so called “coffee table” books. 

The reason this is a confession is because somewhere I got it drilled into my head that real books are ones that are THICK, with tiny print and little to nothing in the way of pictures.  Admittedly, many scholarly books are still like this.  I have therefore felt pings of guilt for using materials from these lovely picture books for quotes in papers for classes (when I had them) and to teach people.  There was often a feeling that my information was somehow invalid whenever it came from books with pictures.

I’m getting over this problem though.  In fact, I think that the argument that real books should not have pictures is now ridiculous.  When printing was more expensive, it made sense that pictures should not be included, but now it seems absurd to not include pictures if applicable because they help bring the topic of study to life!  I cannot imagine studying military history without pictures of battlefield maps, photographs of the events as they took place or their aftermath.  I feel as though I understand things better with pictures and that my efforts to self-educate are not in any way cheapened by the practice of reading coffee table books (so long as it is backed up with supplementary materials… I am not arguing against books with no pictures, I am simply saying that books with pictures should no longer be considered invalid sources of learning). 

So that brings me to the reason why I wrote this article in the first place: I believe that continued life-long learning is incredibly important.  Books with pictures are entertaining, engaging and educational and they are often works of art, beautiful in design and layout, in-and-of-themselves! Pick up a non-fiction book with pictures—they are on sale at Barnes and Noble all the time in the bargain books section.  Start learning about history, science, architecture, the automobile industry, whatever suits you, and your whole world will open up as you do because curiosity begets curiosity.  The more you allow yourself to learn, the more you want to learn! 

Skeptism Yay!

This is a blog about skeptic philosophy.  Please know there is a serious difference between someone who says, "I'm a skeptic" in the casual sense and someone who says, "I am a skeptic philosopher."  Still, if you know the definition of the word "skeptic" then you've got an idea where this school is coming from: there's some serious doubt going on!  

To MAJORLY oversimplify and summarize the arguments of skeptic philosophers is to say,"you can't really be sure that you know anything."  

For example, if you've ever seen the movie The Matrix, people are living in a pseudo-reality that is generated by computers, giving people a false impression of what is real while machines sap their bodies of life.  What people think is real is not really real, but they have no way of knowing that until they are pulled into a world that is actually real.  (This is admittedly not a great way to explain skepticism because being hooked into a super-computer that sucks your life from you is far-fetched.  However, the principle here will stand true.  Bear with me.)

You and I do not KNOW with absolute certainty that we aren't hooked up to a machine that generates a reality for us.  And we can't prove it.  Any proof that we try to generate can be debunked with some kind of argument.

• History?  
• How do you know that those who recorded it are telling the truth? 
• That those people were accurate or had access to accurate data or information? 
• How do you know that these memories were not implanted in your head and that you never actually lived any of them?  
• First-Hand Experiential Knowledge?  
• How do you know that you can trust your senses?  
• How do you know that your memories of what happened are still accurate?  
• If you recorded it, how do you know that you were honest with yourself or that you indeed wrote an accurate description or that how you are interpreting what you wrote then is correct?
• Science?  
• How do you know that the biases of the scientists aren't in play?  
• How can scientists be accurate when data can seemingly change over and over as we've seen happen a lot (think health sciences or global warming or cooling)?  
• What if everything in our world is a deception by some power in charge of things beyond us and we're being made to think what we think?

Of course, you can argue away the simple points I made here, but eventually, the skeptic wins out because he can keep asking more and more questions as to the foundations and justifications for your knowledge (this goes to another branch of philosophy called Foundationalism, but we won't be discussing that here).  So long as you can get to a question that someone doesn't know the answer to, the skeptic wins.

This doesn't necessarily make this a popular philosophical idea though because it's irritating and seemingly not-applicable to anything in the real world.  And more importantly, few people actually believe that we don't really know anything, at least not to the degree that they are willing to passively suffer pain or even die for such beliefs.

Skepticism is Refreshing?

For these reasons, I actually found this premise of skepticism quite refreshing because it highly emphasizes a wonderful facet of Christianity (and you could apply it to other faiths as well).  That is, you can't know anything in this world other than by faith.  You can't know that you know anything.  If you'd like to prove that you know something, read some skeptic philosophy and you'll find your argument destroyed because at some point down the line, you are going to have to accept that what you know is actually a belief and that you are resting on your faith, not in your actual knowledge.   

St. Augustine of Hippo.  In this illustration (done over 1,000 years after his death and therefore probably looks nothing like him), our hero Augustine has been interrupted from writing in a book because he is receiving a burning heart from a glowing orb of light named "Veritas" (Latin for "Truth").  Thank goodness for this TOTALLY SWEET illustration that tells me how Augustine came up with all of those great ideas!

Augustine's Argument:

For example, to expound on an argument made by St. Augustine, how do I know that my parents are really my parents?  Do I know this or do I just believe it?  Did I see myself get formed in the womb, or come out of it?  If I did see it, do I remember it?  Or am I just taking someone's word for this?  If I am taking their word for it, how do I know that they are telling the truth?  

Of course they are telling the truth, they're my parents!  Yes, you are right.  But you are taking their word on faith.  Many things are in play that cause you to believe that you can rest your faith in them (they've been around for years, have great stories to tell about your childhood, etc.), but you are a believer in them and not a knower nevertheless.  It still comes down as a matter of your accepting their testimony with belief, not an actual knowing.  

As for me, I love that the world has been constructed like this.  To me, it's an evidence or even a calling card for an unseen God, pointing to Himself.  It's one of those "built-in's" of the universe that we can't escape.  Just like you can't say, "there is no absolute truth" without self-contradicting because to say "there is no absolute truth" is to make an absolute truth statement, you likewise cannot make an argument that you believe fact and evidence when people of faith are full of hooey.  To the contrary, every single person is a person of great faith and none of us can live or function without it.  

And just as someone with science can make phenomenal arguments with great justifications for their beliefs, so can people of faith (for those that do their homework).  Likewise both can be deconstructed.  

So then, it becomes a matter of what you will have faith in, not a matter of what you know.  

Studying Philosophy.

I have been reading/studying some philosophy lately.  I figured it would be good for the ol' brain development.  Not that I'm seeking to become a philosopher.  Generally, I think that philosophers come to some zany conclusions, but that isn't to say that I don't respect their minds or their willingness to ask some really GREAT questions.  Their great questions are both natural and valuable for everyone to consider.

In fact, I think we would all do a little better if we both studied philosophy and became willing to think about some tough thought-problems of our own.  It takes some real courage to do so, as well as endurance.  This is because if you start asking tough questions, your whole world may be shaken up-and you might no longer know what you believe, or why you believe what you believe, or if what you believe is indeed reliable and a sundry of other such difficult mental conundrums that may arise.  Staying in that place of tension (at least in some areas of our minds) on a regular basis is scary and difficult and requires tremendous emotional stability to continue doing over a long period of time.

Bust of Aristotle

Unfortunately, the painfulness of this path is precisely the reason why loads of people cease to think for themselves whenever they get the chance-they come to certain trivial conclusions about who they are, what their life is supposed to be, etc.  They cease really thinking and continue in their limited viewpoints until some sort of "crisis of faith" (for whatever it is they've put their faith in) comes along and derails them.

I wish I could say that I was free from all this, but I have been all too guilty both of loathing having to think through things thoroughly and of remaining immature in my thinking.  Were it not for lots of crises in my life, I don't think I would seek out the answers that I should either.

Nevertheless, I am grateful for the shake-ups because when we get through these kinds of questions and get them answered, we eventually develop a new platform of thinking, a foundation upon which to build our thoughts and minds.  When we become sure of the things that we know to be true, then new doubts and questions that come along the way cease to be really all that scary; instead they become revelations of weak points in our armor that are mendable and ultimately, strengthening.

Assuredly, if we work through these mind-bending problems, we'll (A.) become unshakable and emboldened in living life powerfully everyday because of the confidence we have in our position and (B.) able to help others who are asking the same questions (yet sometimes they didn't even know they were asking these questions!).  Finally, (C.) we should arrive at such points with humility and grace because these roads aren't fun, but always develop good character (provided we're really getting things answered.)

So to conclude and bring this little article full circle by making the point I was trying to make: the process of learning how to think is of critical importance (obviously) and a good study of philosophy is helpful toward that end.

Change the World Much?

So here's a cool little story from antiquity that's packed with lessons.  

The Death of Socrates

Socrates mentors this guy named Plato in philosophy and really, if we're being honest, teaches him how to think and live.  (Socrates, if you'll recall, had such a strong tie between his thought and his actions that he was willing to die for them).  This had a profound effect on his disciple Plato.

The School of Athens (detail) with the elder Plato on the left and his brilliant disciple Aristotle on the right.

 Plato in turn started a school in Athens for philosophers.  One of his disciples was this brilliant man named Aristotle.  Aristotle was, of course, a great thinker in his own right-even taking issue with some of what his mentor taught him and launching into an entirely new "school of thought" if you will.  

Between the three of these guys, you have the foundations of much of Western thought, and there are many assumptions that all of us hold today simply because of their influence.  

The reason their thought patterns spread so far and wide was because Alexander the Great conquered much of the known Western (and a lot of the Eastern) world at the time.  Throughout his empire, he spread the Greek-thought of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (helped in part by the fact that he established a common "Koine" Greek language to facilitate trade and learning, and because he founded learning centers like the city of Alexandria, famous for its Great Library).  More than a general, Alexander the Great was a phenomenal statesman who understood how to transform the cultures of the societies he conquered.  

The product of over a century of thought-development taking action-Alexander the Great.

One of the reasons why Alexander was able to accomplish so much was because his mind was so well developed.  He simply outsmarted other generals in battle, and knew what factors most influenced a whole society.  History records how Alexander knew so much by telling us who his mentor was-none other than Aristotle himself!  

So there you have it... an unbroken line of mentors from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle to Alexander the Great.  Socrates died in 399 B.C., long before Alexander was born.  Plato too, was dead before Alexander turned 6.  But Aristotle lived to see his ideas, and the ideas of his forbears, spread further than he could have ever possibly dreamed through the actions of Alexander.  

There are tons of lessons in here (too many for a short post) but I at least want to mention how valuable even one life is... each of these men, by mentoring just one person, ensured that the entire world for thousands of years to come would be changed.  I think it goes to say that we should each live as if countless millions are depending on us to do the best with what we've been given.  It's not a guarantee that we'll have such influence, but without ever knowing (as Socrates and Plato never could have), I'd rather err on the side of going after great influence and change as opposed to passively living and dying without thought of who is to come after me.