With John Calvin’s birthday coming up in a few days, he was born 500 years ago on June 10, 1509, I though it would be fitting to do a post on the Calvinist theology.
Calvin is best known for the theological system that was named after him – Calvinism. Note that while Clavinist churches are still in existence today not all the churches adhere to all the classical features of Calvinism. As a theology what makes classical Calvinism distinctive is that it teaches the sovereignty of God in salvation and in life. The five points of Calvinism include:
The doctrine of total depravity – The inability of man to follow God and save himself due to inherent sin.
The doctrine of unconditional election – States that God’s choice in who is to be with him is based on his mercy alone and not on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith of the chosen people.
The doctrine of limited atonement – Says that atonement is only for those chosen by God even though he has the power to save everyone he has chosen not too do so.
The doctrine of irresistible grace – Says that those that God has chosen will be brought to faith in time and that these people would not be able to resist the call of the Gospel.
The Perseverance of the saints – Asserts that those that God has chosen has “eternal security” and that those that fall away from the faith are apparently not among the chosen.
As mentioned earlier, there are lots of variations of Calvinism today with modern variations being embraced more and more in North America. With his birthday coming up this would be good news to Calvin were he alive.
December is still more than six months away which means we have quite some time to wait before we can see the movie Agora.
According to Wikipedia, “Agora is an upcoming 2009 historical drama film directed by Alejandro Amenábar, written by Amenábar and Mateo Gil, and starring Rachel Weisz and Max Minghella. It was screened Out of Competition at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. It will then get a general release on December 18, 2009.”
The movie is about the love story of astrologer-philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria (Rachel Weisz) and her slave Davus (Max Minghella). It is more than a love story though because it also shows what went on during Hypatia’s time in the 4th century when religious persecution was rampant among Christians and Jews. Racehl Weisz says empathically of the story, “It’s the true story of a fourth-century woman and, in some ways, nothing much has changed. We’ve evolved in so many ways, and in others we haven’t evolved at all. We can go into outer space and travel to the moon; we can cure certain diseases; but we still kill each other in the name of religion. It seems so primitive to still be doing that.” How true.
The real Hypatia was a Greek scholar from Alexandria in Egypt. Aside from being a philosopher and astronomer she was also the first notable woman in mathematics. Hypatia died in the hands of a Coptic Christian mob who blamed her for religious turmoil.
Socrates said that the “unexamined life is not worth living”. In this case we can definitely say that the Examined Life is worth watching!
Examined Life is a film showing eight renowned philosophers in turn walking and sharing their thoughts with writer and director Astra Taylor. Featured philosophers in Examined Life include Cornel West, Avital Ronell, Peter Singer, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Martha Nussbaum, Michael Hardt, Slavoj Zizek, Judith Butler and Sunaura Taylor.
The film was done with the premise that “philosophers have long done their best thinking when directly engaging with the outside world, not in isolation from it,” and since walking means going out and Neitzsche once claimed that “only ideas conceived while walking have any value” then it’s easy to see why Taylor chose to give us a peek into the philosophers thoughts while they were literally out on the streets.
The film has been receiving praise for bring philosophy to the figurative (aside from the literal) streets, making it actually understandable and even interesting for regular people. Ok so interesting might be too strong for some people but at the least she got the philosophers to open up in a manner that steers clear of too much big terms. In the end, interested or bored, reviewers agree that the discussions with each philosopher will leave you thinking a bit deeper about different things in life. So if your brain needs a little jump-start or you want to indulge in a variety of philosophy lessons without having to pore through lots of books my advice would be to watch Examined Life.
The Department of Philosophy of the University of Guelph will be inviting a speaker every year to their campus hold an event called The Guelph Lecture in Philosophy. This is the very first year that the event will be held. The inauguration of the Guelph Lecture in Philosophy will be held on March 21 from 2 to 4pm at the Rozanski Hall in Guelph. The lecturer, Peter Singer, will speak on “Ethics and Animals”. Everyone is invited to come and listen to the lecture. NO ADMISSION FEE.
Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He is best known for his book Animal Liberation, which is credited by some for the formation of the animal rights movement as we now know. With a utilitarian approach to ethics he asserted the principle of minimizing suffering in his book and argued that animals have rights and these rights should be based on their ability to feel pain. Singer’s latest book, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, is fresh out of printing. Though I haven’t got hold of a copy yet but it promises to be a riveting read based not only on the topic itself and Singer’s reputation but from the first few paragraphs shown in the book’s website.
With such a distinguished guest it is no wonder Prof. Andrew Bailey of Guelph’s Philosophy Department feels that they are indeed fortunate.
Observe the two candidates today, John McCain and Barrack Obama, and you will find contradicting philosophies. In fact, you may be surprised at the fact that they do not agree at all on a lot of aspects such as global warming and the oil supply issue. If you were a voter, one of these two things would be important to you. So if you were in the position of McCain or Obama, which would you target?
Well before anything else, it also depends on what you believe in. Both have used them as part of their agenda whenever they come out and speak in front of the territories to where they are campaigning. In debates and their advertising mediums, you will find that they emphasize on these points, hoping that they will click and become heroes in the eyes of voters, if and when they win the elections.
The philosophy of one is different from another. A lot of factors such as cultural, social and technology factors come into play as far as concluding a philosophical summary of what things people would care about.
In politics, the philosophy of the overall leader will be closely monitored. For one, it will be a measure of his competency and how well he can drive a nation. These are pretty big shoes to fill and if you think about it, one minor error could lead to disaster as far as voter confidence is concerned.
In philosophy, do what you believe in and not what others want you to do for them. Doing so may put you in a position where you may eventually regret trying to be who you are not.
One’s words are not enough to gather the trust and belief of most people. That is perhaps what best describes why most people would want to stick to beliefs based on more than one claim. For example, stating a fact on current social trends according to the viewpoint of one person is not immediately concurred by another for the reason that he wants to gather further support and backup for the claim. Such facts may include as acknowledging that social networking is the new way of expanding ties or that online dating is the new way of hooking up. Taken as a whole, people only believe once they are proven.
Theories and claims are not always believable especially when they are fresh. Another aspect is the stature of the person, regardless if he has higher studies. Fame is the only thing that can make a simple statement reliable and for the unknown people, don’t expect to get immediate credit for anything. These are all common traits that we have garnered from society and it doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon.
Take it from the early philosophers. Most of them in the early ages were perhaps laughed at for their claims. Not until their philosophical theories were ratified and proven were they acknowledged and we all know that when that time comes, they may have already passed away to stand tall for their claims. Philosophy does seem to be rewarding but only after some time. When they do, you can be assured that your name will be on everyone’s minds.
Everybody on earth has their view regarding the topic and the fundamental ideas behind the two have been debated since the first philosophers decided to ponder why there is good and evil. Philosophers have long argued that the sole purpose of man’s life on this earth is for self satisfaction and that the two ideas come into play in the pursuit thereof. Plato observed and reflected in his works that there are only a few possible ways and means by which man can do good deeds but indefinite ways by which to commit evil towards fellow man.
Time has had the true definitions and fundamental ideas behind the true meanings of the two bent and twisted to suit our very needs. During the time when the US loved and embraced slavery, it was not seen as an evil though today it is by no means defines as such. Societies such as the Nazi’s during the Second World War tolerated genocide as means of attaining the true identity of the Aryan race.
Is Good and Evil a universal description of truth or are they mere terms that as we say are bent and twisted to suit a societies needs and wants.
Moral Absolutism defines good and evil as concepts defined by GOD and that anything done that is against the will of GOD is to be defined and considered to be evil in all respects. Moral Relativism on the other hand offers a broader explanation of the ideals saying they are only products of local culture and that their definition can be changed to suit the needs of men who aim one goal or the other. Universalism on the other hand says that the difference between the two can only be bent so much and that the true meanings are still well defined by the teachings of past societies.
Scientology has been called a cult, a religion, a pseudo-science and many other names. Scientology has fallen prey to more speculation when news of many celebrities in Hollywood, have been identified with associations to the said organization that many view with skepticism. Research reveals that Scientology is a body of practices and beliefs that are based on the works of American Speculative Fiction author L.Ron Hubbard who is the recognized father of the organization. The main regulatory organization for the previously unknown group is the Church of Scientology, a hierarchical organization founded by the author himself. Many other groups who work outside the main body use Hubbard’s works as basis for their own interpretation of the initial knowledgebase. During a time when people were deeply engrossed in a way of finding believable ideals that other religion can offer, scientology filled the gap. Their declarations as a church comes when Hubbard notices that there are many supporters who use his work in a myriad of ways, unifying them in the Church of Scientology which allowed him to standardize the interpretation of all his works. The ideals Hubbard interpreted are rooted in the works of many a famous philosophers like Bacon, Spencer, Freud and many others. His accumulated body of knowledge encompassed the whole philosophical theater from then till his time, incorporating some of the ideals of Hinduism and many other religions.
The combination of all those bodies of thought has resulted in a group that revolves around eight fundamental ideals that have to maintained and kept in balance. In Scientology, there is no absolute right or wrong but rather a body of ideals or events that lead to such. The scientology cross has eight corners, each representing eight ideals or dynamics on which they base their teachings. Self, Creativity (procreation family and Sex), Society (group and community), species Survival, life forms in general, matter, spirit and Infinity (Supreme Being) are the eight basic fundamentals areas they focus on. All decisions a practitioner of Scientology makes is said to need to impact all equally weighing them against these basic ideals.
Summing up all the information, they can be seen as an organization that has been derived from the many bodies of thought that is based on the acquired knowledge of many philosophers all combined into one body of knowledge. May you see it as a pseudo-science a religion or anything else, as long as it does not endanger the lives of their following then they should be left to do their own business.
At this time Natural law has been divided into two main areas; the law of man and the law of Nature which is said to define what where and how things happen around us. This in turn relates to most modern views of the so-called natural Law, the definition of which is still an enigma to this day even with all the sciences and theological bodies that try to define and give meaning to it. Analyzing religion from all sides, we have a common fact in that all of the sects/groups have a single being at the top, Jesus for the Christians, Muhammad for the Muslims, Buddha for the Shinto and so on and so forth.
Summing all of this up, the term “Natural Law” is still a vague yet seemingly defined concept that causes us to go back to the questions our ancient forefathers asked themselves, why are we here, how does the world and nature work out as it does and what may be the future for us in this ever-changing universe which “Natural Law” controls but whose true meaning is still out of grasp. Many philosophical and scientific genius have defined it but to look back, their definitions lead to more questions rather than answers. Science as we know it is an evolving body of knowledge and Philosophy as well is such that both have a common function, which is to give us reason, a reason to find ourselves in our place in this time and space and time of thinking as we evolve into the future human race. No one authority should claim supreme authority for man is a thinking being capable of creating his own view from what is happening which makes the task ever more difficult. The true definition of Natural Law might be out of reach but we are all embodiments of the said law however incomprehensible and vague it may be.
