Time is relative to human existence and without that human existence time will cease to be, or at least will no longer temporalize itself. Time is a construct of human understanding of it. Since much understanding of it is erroneous and flawed we must undertake the Destruktion.
Martin Heidegger is a difficult read. I find myself only swimming in the shallow section of the Heidegger pool and then only with the assistance of multiple swimmies. I am too afraid to cross the rope into the deep end. I am afraid of what I might discover on multiple levels. I am afraid that I might discover that I am indeed in the deep end of such a scary pool and that this scary pool full of what I once thought was just ordinary water has new depths of meaning and hidden things! EGAD! That is just too much disclosure for me to take. I just hope that I'm not thrown into the deep end without knowing...
Heidegger has a bit of a theory on everything but his main point seems to be that much of Western Philosophy, the most valuable tool that the Western World has in connecting with reality and being. The problem is that Western Philosophy has pretty much misunderstood the term "being" since the days of Plato. That's a lot of incorrect being. Prior to Plato, the Pre-Socratics searched for the meaning of "Being". Since Plato, we as Western thinkers have taken the notion of "Being" to be so understood that we needn't study what it is to be. So, to be or not to be is not the question but what is to be is.
Some of the commentaries, in fact most that I have glanced over that talk about Heidegger's and his consistent penchant for coining or rather re-coining words and phrases have something to the effect of "this German word is rather difficult to translate into English" or "there isn't really any translation for this word". Very helpful guys! Thanks. I guess to understand Heidegger we might have to gain a mastery of German. We'll just put that on our little (although growing) to do list. But, there are a couple of words/concepts that I find intriguing and worthy of note in spite of their difficulty in translating.
First, the word Geworfenheit (thrownness). Heidegger likes to highlight the arbitrary nature of our existence. For him we are not placed in a specific time or place or generation for any specific reason, rather we are thrown into existence at a certain time. Now time is not some linear thing with a past, present and a future. Time is divided into different categories: the past, the present and the notion of the eternal are modes of temporality. Temporality is how we see time. Time itself is but a construct that exists only because it needs to exist for human beings to understand their existence. Maybe I chose this one because I like the German word, but it also shows Heidegger's view on fate and determinism as well. We are thrown into existence with a whole bunch of possibilities afforded to us. The one great and absolute possiblity we have as human beings is death. Very encouraging no? But hopefully know you understand my pool joke at the end of paragraph II... You forgot it didn't you? Go reread, have a little chuckle.
Second, die Kehre (the Turn). The Turn is a point in Heidegger's life where he begins to change his focus in philosophical studies. For our purposes die Kehre might have something to do in the story where the main character has a sudden, albeit arbitrary change in focus.
Third, disclosure. Disclosure is the business of human beings. It is at once the disclosure of the facts of our existence and surroundings that we have been thrown into and the disclosure of new and hidden meanings in this already symbolic world that we have been thrown into.
Fourth, Lichtung (clearing) & Destruktion (Destruction). Lichtung is literally a clearing, like a clearing in a woods, but it also has some connotation with light. It is in such clearings that we come to understand being and as being stands in this clearing we come to understand things around being. The reason we need these clearings is that being has become, and thus all truth, has become muddled in our understanding because we have not really sought the meaning of being in seeking the meaning of everything else. Destruktion then is the destruction of traditional thinking that are associated with some of the most important questions of philosophy. By destruction we can get to the root of being and thus, all other things. By destruction we can get past Plato's assumptions and return to the Pre-Socratic and primordial discussions of the pressing questions of philosophy.
So where is the story in all of this? Not sure yet, but the idea of time as having an dependent existence on human beings fascinates me. What if time is truly relative to human beings? What then happens when time is relative to each individual human being? (Not really Heidegger's philosophy, but something for a story). The turn has to come into play. The main characters have to be at work in doing some kind of disclosure. Maybe a whodunnit detective story?? Something is coming together, maybe I'll simply look for a clearing and see if it comes to light.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
Parmenides the early Eaternalist (a self-defeating title nonetheless)
Continuing in our deliberations on time & how we as humans explain and understand it, we go back to the dawn of Philosophy to Parmenides & Zeno. Parmenides was born about 515 BC; Zeno about 490 BC. Zeno was a student of Parmenides so their ideas have similarities and we shall lump them together for this one post.
Parmenides had two basic things to say about reality, the "what is":
There is the way of truth, which shows reality is one, there is no change and existence is timeless.
Then there is the way of opinion, this is the senses that perceive change and trick the mind into thinking that the reality of oneness is somehow changing.
In this way Parmenides is an early foreshadowing of an eternalistic view of time. Eternalism states that the all points in time are equally real. Time is merely a dimension so past events are still there just as much as the present is here and that the future is out there only our current spatial dimension hasn't crossed paths with the future dimensions and that our current spatial dimension has already crossed paths with time dimensions we see as past.
Interestingly, if not without a bit of the stretch of the imagination, Peter Kingsley, a bit of a rogue scholar and a self-described mystic has reinterpreted Parmenides as a Iatromantist (Greek Shaman or Medicine Man). In this light, he reinterprets Parmenides as a apocalyptic religious philosopher. Maybe Kingsley is right. Some Greek philosophers have probably been overly stripped of the religious nature by the fragmentary nature of their extant works or by the overly zealous nature of many scholarly people over the last three centuries to make the Greeks as above religion to match the tenor of their scholarly circles.
So where is the story?
Not sure yet. But Time as an illusion seems to fit. I like the Iatromantis angle too.
Parmenides had two basic things to say about reality, the "what is":
There is the way of truth, which shows reality is one, there is no change and existence is timeless.
Then there is the way of opinion, this is the senses that perceive change and trick the mind into thinking that the reality of oneness is somehow changing.
In this way Parmenides is an early foreshadowing of an eternalistic view of time. Eternalism states that the all points in time are equally real. Time is merely a dimension so past events are still there just as much as the present is here and that the future is out there only our current spatial dimension hasn't crossed paths with the future dimensions and that our current spatial dimension has already crossed paths with time dimensions we see as past.
Interestingly, if not without a bit of the stretch of the imagination, Peter Kingsley, a bit of a rogue scholar and a self-described mystic has reinterpreted Parmenides as a Iatromantist (Greek Shaman or Medicine Man). In this light, he reinterprets Parmenides as a apocalyptic religious philosopher. Maybe Kingsley is right. Some Greek philosophers have probably been overly stripped of the religious nature by the fragmentary nature of their extant works or by the overly zealous nature of many scholarly people over the last three centuries to make the Greeks as above religion to match the tenor of their scholarly circles.
So where is the story?
Not sure yet. But Time as an illusion seems to fit. I like the Iatromantis angle too.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
The Novikov Self-Consistency Principle
Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov is a Russian theoretical Astrophysicist and cosmologist. He was born in Moscow in 1935. Now the nature of Novikov's studies is fascinating but dizzyingly above the head of your author so I'll only be taking notice of the few bits that I can understand. He's written some good books that I've dusted up my Russian on... just kidding. But, one of his books is called the River of Time. In this book he tackles how physics and our understanding of it has impacted our conception of time. Physics is one of those studies, like the aforementioned mathematics that I find to be wanting in when I am weighed and measured. But, some of it's technicality is broken down well by Novikov and brought to just inside my reach of intellectual capabilities. Not, the whole of it mind you, but pieces that are intriguing enough for me to weave some sort of tale out of it.
First, in his work he talks about how time stops in black holes. Second, it talks about how it bends over white holes. Who knew there was such a thing as a white hole? Essentially a White Hole is the opposite of a black hole. Things can enter into a black hole but cannot escape. Things can escape a white hole but not enter in. Fascinating. Dizzying. But then he gets into some more technical areas like how time can be converted into space and space into time in certain cases and begins to lose me. But, I understand the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle well enough, I think, to make a little light story out of it.
The Novikov Self-Consistency Principle solves for us the Grandfather Paradox of Time Travel and paints a movie favorite of mine in a little bit of a negative light. The Grandfather Paradox basically goes what happens when a time traveler goes back in time and inadvertently or intentionally kills his grandfather. (Why would you kill your grandfather intentionally escapes me). If the time traveler did this he would bring his own existence into jeopardy, because without a grandfather there is no father or mother and thus, no grandson or granddaughter and thus the time traveler would not exist to go back in time to jeopardize his own existence. Marty McFly does this when he pushes his father out of the way of his grandfather's car thus negating the Florence Nightingale effect that causes his mother to fall in love with his father. "He hit me with the car..." Marty relates to Doc. "This is heavy". So, what the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle states is that it is impossible for someone to go back in time and alter history in such a way that would jeopardize future events. If it is happening then it was supposed to happen and the present time traveler actually had a imperative role to play in the past that they traveled back to. Kind of like Meg Ryan going back in time to be with Hugh Jackman so that Hugh Jackman could invent the elevator in Kate and Leopold. Big fan of both of you by the way! So, Back to the Future fails the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle test, but Kate & Leopold holds it up.
So where is the story?
What if the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle is wrong. What if instead of it being the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle, Novikov's publisher accidentally mistypes his hypothesis when translating it into English and it comes out the Self Novikov-Consistency Principle. The paper gets published that way and when Time Travel is invented in 1990 by one of his Copenhagen students they go back in time and encounter a grandfather paradox situation and suddenly the time traveler is changed into a Novikov double. The next day in class Novikov notices that one of his student's strangely resembles his younger self. Repeat this three times and suddenly Novikov begins to figure out what is happening. He tries to go back in time to stop the transformation of the first student thinking that he could reverse the situation this way, but is prevented because any action he takes to change the new Novikovs back into their former selves is prevented by the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle because Novikov thinks in Russian, not English. There ends up being no solution and Novikov is forced to contend with various aged versions of himself existing contemporaneously. The story should end with Novikov imploring his students to proofread their papers thoroughly before submitting them for grading.
Honi ha-M'agel
In continuing my research for topical information for A Cornish Mess & Other Stories Loosely Revolving Around The Notion of Time I stumbled upon the story of Honi ha-M'agel or Honi the circle drawer. Honi was a man from the 1st century BC who was famous in Judaism for his ability to pray to God for rain.
Honi one time drew a circle around himself and prayed to God and told him that he would not move until it rained. This was during a drought so it was a necessary prayer for the society. When slight rain occurred Honi informed God that this was not enough. When a torrential downpour started Honi informed God that this was too much and that he wanted a calm rain. A calm rain happened and Honi left his circle.
Because of this Honi was nearly excommunicated because he had tested God. Thankfully, Honi received a pardon from this fate by Shimon ben Shetach, the brother of Queen Shlomtzion.
There are two accounts of the death of Honi. One account states that Honi fell into a deep sleep for 70 years and when he awoke he could not convince the people that he was in fact Honi the circle drawer and prayed for God to take him away. The second account is that Honi, a known miracle worker in Jewish circles was caught up in the Pharisees vs. Sadducees fight over Jerusalem around 63 BC. Hyrcanus II grabbed Honi and demanded that he pray for the demise of the Sadducee backed Aristobulus II and his followers. Honi instead prayed to God "Lord of the universe, as the besieged and the besiegers both belong to Your people, I beseech You not to answer the evil prayers of either". Hyrcanus and his followers, none too pleased by the holy man's prayer stoned him to death. The second account comes from the words of Josephus.
Now, this story smacks of some Biblical parallels. First, the circle drawing and the rain reminds me of Gideon and his prayer about the dew and the wool fleece in Judges 6. So, the Jews of the 1st century BC would have been very familiar with Gideon testing God with the act of rain/dew falling in certain places. Second, and this is very different in context, but when Balak, the king of Moab calls upon another holy man, Balaam to curse the Israelites as they cross through the desert. Balaam three times blesses Israel rather than cursing them much to the chagrin of Balak in Numbers 23-24. Now I know these are two different contexts, but it's a ruler demanding a prayer from a holy man and getting the opposite of what they expect.
Story Material:
The 70 years that Honi ha-M'agel is interesting enough to rewrite and weave into a short story. But what of the other main characters? Who is Shimon ben Shetach? Who is Queen Shlomtzion? Who is Hyrcanus II? Who is Aristobulus II? What of the Pharisees and the Sadducees?
Shimon ben Shetach - A confident Pharisee who undid much of the Sadducee interpretation of the law when he came to power as a religious leader. He led a witch hunt that had 80 women killed for sorcery. His son died as a result of the revenge from this incident. He was seen as fair to gentiles, returning a jewel he found when he purchased a donkey even though by law that jewel should have been his. He said that even though the law said that the jewel was rightfully his it was obvious that the man who sold the donkey did not intend to sell the jewel as well.
Queen Shlomtzion - A peaceful transitional regent between Sadducee rule and Pharisee rule of the religious courts of Judea (pre-Roman occupation). She seemed to be politically astute enough not to let the two warring factions muck everything up in her life time.
Hyrcanus II - A weak ruler and High Priest who leaned toward the Pharisee way of interpreting Scripture. He was at times controlled by Antipater the Idumaean and the Romans. He was eventually maimed and exiled to Babylon and then killed for plotting an uprising later in life.
Aristobulus II - Brother of Hyrcanus, but sided with the Sadducees. He overthrew Hyrcanus but was eventually deposed himself with the Roman help and killed by Pompey Magnus.
Antipater the Idumaean - A wheeler dealer who controlled Hyrcanus II and then took the kingship for his own family in setting up the Herodian dynasty. He was a major political player in bringing in massive changes in Judea in how the Jews were Hellenized and Romanized. He wasn't considered fully Jewish by the Jewish nationalists.
I'm sure upon further reflection a story can emerge from this...
Honi one time drew a circle around himself and prayed to God and told him that he would not move until it rained. This was during a drought so it was a necessary prayer for the society. When slight rain occurred Honi informed God that this was not enough. When a torrential downpour started Honi informed God that this was too much and that he wanted a calm rain. A calm rain happened and Honi left his circle.
Because of this Honi was nearly excommunicated because he had tested God. Thankfully, Honi received a pardon from this fate by Shimon ben Shetach, the brother of Queen Shlomtzion.
There are two accounts of the death of Honi. One account states that Honi fell into a deep sleep for 70 years and when he awoke he could not convince the people that he was in fact Honi the circle drawer and prayed for God to take him away. The second account is that Honi, a known miracle worker in Jewish circles was caught up in the Pharisees vs. Sadducees fight over Jerusalem around 63 BC. Hyrcanus II grabbed Honi and demanded that he pray for the demise of the Sadducee backed Aristobulus II and his followers. Honi instead prayed to God "Lord of the universe, as the besieged and the besiegers both belong to Your people, I beseech You not to answer the evil prayers of either". Hyrcanus and his followers, none too pleased by the holy man's prayer stoned him to death. The second account comes from the words of Josephus.
Now, this story smacks of some Biblical parallels. First, the circle drawing and the rain reminds me of Gideon and his prayer about the dew and the wool fleece in Judges 6. So, the Jews of the 1st century BC would have been very familiar with Gideon testing God with the act of rain/dew falling in certain places. Second, and this is very different in context, but when Balak, the king of Moab calls upon another holy man, Balaam to curse the Israelites as they cross through the desert. Balaam three times blesses Israel rather than cursing them much to the chagrin of Balak in Numbers 23-24. Now I know these are two different contexts, but it's a ruler demanding a prayer from a holy man and getting the opposite of what they expect.
Story Material:
The 70 years that Honi ha-M'agel is interesting enough to rewrite and weave into a short story. But what of the other main characters? Who is Shimon ben Shetach? Who is Queen Shlomtzion? Who is Hyrcanus II? Who is Aristobulus II? What of the Pharisees and the Sadducees?
Shimon ben Shetach - A confident Pharisee who undid much of the Sadducee interpretation of the law when he came to power as a religious leader. He led a witch hunt that had 80 women killed for sorcery. His son died as a result of the revenge from this incident. He was seen as fair to gentiles, returning a jewel he found when he purchased a donkey even though by law that jewel should have been his. He said that even though the law said that the jewel was rightfully his it was obvious that the man who sold the donkey did not intend to sell the jewel as well.
Queen Shlomtzion - A peaceful transitional regent between Sadducee rule and Pharisee rule of the religious courts of Judea (pre-Roman occupation). She seemed to be politically astute enough not to let the two warring factions muck everything up in her life time.
Hyrcanus II - A weak ruler and High Priest who leaned toward the Pharisee way of interpreting Scripture. He was at times controlled by Antipater the Idumaean and the Romans. He was eventually maimed and exiled to Babylon and then killed for plotting an uprising later in life.
Aristobulus II - Brother of Hyrcanus, but sided with the Sadducees. He overthrew Hyrcanus but was eventually deposed himself with the Roman help and killed by Pompey Magnus.
Antipater the Idumaean - A wheeler dealer who controlled Hyrcanus II and then took the kingship for his own family in setting up the Herodian dynasty. He was a major political player in bringing in massive changes in Judea in how the Jews were Hellenized and Romanized. He wasn't considered fully Jewish by the Jewish nationalists.
I'm sure upon further reflection a story can emerge from this...
Henri Bergson: my intuition, your duration. Your intuition, my duration. Let's just say our intuition of the entire duration.
Now, for all things that I am and hope to be, a mathematician is not one of them. My study of time is more concerned with how time is perceived and experienced rather than the equations that follow up those beliefs or are foundations to those beliefs. I take very seriously the axiom Know Thyself and know that I am insufficient in math with little hope of becoming sufficient. For that reason I cower in fear at any type of math that throws in more than a single Greek Letter. When the equations subsist mostly of such symbols I find myself wandering deep into some void in the time space continuum. It shall invariably be this way. But, defeatism aside I don't have such a great appetite for mathematics as I do philosophy or theology, so it works out. Forgive me if the math behind some of my philosophical meanderings leaves my equations unbalanced. And so we now digress to the subject matter at hand, the philosophy of Henri Bergson and specifically the notions of Duration and Intuition.
Bergson seems to have developed his theories on time because of a number of factors. First, he seems to have lost his religion in response to the growing scientific studies surrounding evolution, specifically Darwin's theories and the inadequacy of Herbert Spencer's philosophies. As an aside, I simply cannot comprehend the ongoing battle of Evolution and Religion. It seems so farcical that these be such necessary enemies. Evolution neither proves nor disproves Scripture and Scripture neither proves nor disproves Evolution. One is a science, an attempt to understand the physical nature of things. The paradigms of these will shift as science increasingly outdoes itself building upon and subtracting from earlier models. Scripture (religion) is the attempt to understand the other nature of things, the spiritual nature of things. While the spiritual nature and the physical nature of things are not mutually exclusive a revelation in one does not negate an aspect of the other. They may illuminate one another, but cannot eliminate one another. And this isn't a bad thing either. But, that is an entirely different discussion!
Bergson developed his theories based on a few experiences he had in his life. The first of which is the loss of his Jewish faith on account of the Darwinian theory of evolution. His adherence to the Darwinian notions of evolution and other's theories of evolution led him to reject some of Spencer's philosophical framework built upon Darwinian evolution. He also seems to have been completely unsatisfied with the Kantian notion of knowledge. Whereas Immanuel Kant felt that we can only know the object as it appeared to us, Bergson believed that we can know the object in and of itself. Whereas Kant felt that free will could only exist outside of the framework of time and space, Bergson defended the notion of free will by correcting some of Kant's reasoning. Another major vein of thought that comes out of Bergson is the continuity of life, the continuity of thought, the continuity of everything. In this he is building on the evolutionary theories and extending them to a number of other fields. This is why he is sometimes lumped in with process philosophers. Everything to him was a continuation of whatever was before it. But, he was very against the mechanistic and deterministic philosophies of his age and preceding ones. He wasn't strict on causality and he didn't feel that all of this process was working towards some end (teleology or finalism). Bergson's work proceeds then from a rejection of the Judaism of his youth, the rejection of Kantian rationalism, and from the rejection of mechanistic philosophies (his defense of free will) and the rejection of teleological necessity.
There's a lot of fascinating stuff in Bergson and a lot of stuff that probably goes above my intellectual comprehension, but what I'm focusing on is two primary things of his thought, intuition and duration.
Intuition is the experiencing of an object to grasp what is unique and ineffable about that object. In his intuition Bergson states we can know the object absolutely and thus rejecting Kant's knowledge of the thing as it appears to us. For Bergson, intuition was necessary to understanding the metaphysical nature of things, that is to understand the object itself in an absolute way, the way it is, not the way it appears to us. For Bergson, metaphysics has to dispense with symbols in order to grasp an absolute. Since words are in and of themselves symbols explaining things in their absolute sense is only partially possible. Because of this Bergson liked to use word pictures rather than concepts in his writings and would admit that even these are inadequate. For Bergson intuition then is only achievable through experience.
Intuition is crucial to duration. Duration is difficult to explain because it occurs through intuition. You and I experience duration because we are using intuition even if we don't realize it. But, explaining it is a bit dodgy because our experience of the same object is never the same. Even if I were to explain my experience to my younger self who had also experienced the same object through intuition our word pictures would inadequately describe them because both of us (I and myself) experienced the intuition from different vantage points. My older self had different memories going into the experience than my younger self going into the exact same experience. Now, what on earth does this have to do with the subject at hand, specifically time?
Time was for Bergson something that was impossible for mathematics and science to explain. This is because time, at its very essence is something that you must experience. We all experience time and we have the intuition of it because we are aging at every moment. We can look back at those moments and dissect them, but when we do we experience those moments differently because we have now gained other memories and experiences. Bergson rejected time as being something that is divisible and so got around Zeno's paradoxes. Time was not something that could be divided because it was a progression. Ok, so this is where Bergson comes to his climax.
Time is impossible for mathematics to explain because time is a progression and in order to explain time it must be divided into measurable parts. By taking the progression and making it a thing (in order to measure it in mathematical or scientific ways) we as philosopher's become confused. Hence we have Zeno's paradoxes, Kant's rejection of free will inside of time and the notion of determinism. But, the reality of the situation is that time is a progression that must be experienced whole - it is indivisible. As such there can be no determinism because causation cannot occur unless things must happen first to cause the second. Because determinism does not exist free will exists because if nothing is determined than everything is free will. The problems of Zeno's paradoxes and that of free will are only created when philosophers take something that is indivisible and the divide it up.
So, where is the story material? Not sure yet, but I like the idea of the younger self and the older self experiencing the same item simultaneously and then not being able to translate their experiences to one another because of the problems of symbols. Bergson's notion of the spools and the images of the colors should be incorporated in as well.
Genesis 11 part 1: The Tower of Babel
First, some observations, then we'll get to some pressing questions.
1) God once again uses plural language to describe himself. "Come, let us go down and confuse their language". This is either a nod to the Trinitarian notion of God as three in one in Christian theology, or a polytheistic presentation of God, or it could be simply a literary device like the "royal we". This keeps cropping up in our investigation into Genesis.
2) This could be a literal story of how multiple languages were formed on earth. This could also be a myth to explain why there are so many languages. Some linguistic studies could be done to decipher when men began to have different languages. This is interesting, but not pressing so I may not get to linguistic studies for quite some time.
The question that pops up first in my mind is why? Why is God so concerned with the capabilities of man? Obviously there is something about man that God is not fond of. Genesis 6 shows that God had seen that man had become wicked and that He regretted making man. God then wiped them out with a flood because of it. But, it seems to that God is almost afraid of man. That might be sacrilegious in writing that, but why is God going to such great lengths to foil man and his efforts. What difference does it make to God that man can plan and do whatever he wants? It reminds me of Genesis 3:22 when God had to act so that Adam wouldn't eat of the tree of life and become immortal. Why does God worry that man become too capable of things?
It makes me think of the Image of God and what man has been created in that image. What is the Image of God? There is something powerful in that because otherwise God wouldn't go to such great lengths to do things to prevent man from accomplishing a tower to the heavens or becoming immortal by eating of the tree of life. The image of God cannot be the knowledge of good and evil because that was acquired. It can't be a sense of morality because without knowing good and evil there can't be a morality. It isn't immortality because obviously man doesn't have it. Or does he? Is the soul immortal? Is this the image of God, the immortality of the soul? Whatever the image of God is in man, it is powerful. And now that man is corrupt and become increasingly focused on being wicked, God does not want man to become powerful enough to unleash that wickedness in some type of way. That's why he banished Adam & Eve from the garden so they couldn't live forever. That's why he wiped out the world in a flood. That's why he dispersed them at Babel.
Genesis 10 - An Origin Story
The sons of Japheth turned out to be the maritime tribes, each with their own language.
The sons of Shem turned out to be the Semitic tribes.
The sons of Ham turned out to be a pretty illustrious bunch in the Ancient Orient. Ham's sons were Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan. Cush's son was named Nimrod and Nimrod was a very busy boy. Nimrod established Babylon, Uruk, Akkad, Kalneh, Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen.
Another interesting point about the sons of Ham are that the Philistines are a direct descendant of Ham. Ham gave birth to Egypt, Egypt produced the Kasluhites and from the Kasluhites came the Philistines.
Obviously Genesis 10 isn't an exhaustive record of where some pretty powerful Empires and city-states came from. However, it does give some insight into the way that the Hebrews of the time saw their world. First, it is very Hebraic-Centric. All of the mighty nations around them came from a Jewish patriarch, Noah. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it might be a bit incomplete. Obviously, my religious slant comes into a bit of play here, but an open-minded investigation has to at least consider the possibility that while this is by no means a "here it is" factual representation of the whole history of the Ancient Near East, there might be some validity to the description. If there was a catastrophic flood that wiped out many peoples or all people then these nations and city-states had to come from somewhere. I tend to think that there was some great flood because so many ancient civilizations reference it. So, coming from a Hebraic text it makes sense that there is a Hebraic origin to all of the surrounding peoples.
The story of Nimrod is an interesting one. Is the text suggesting that Nimrod founded all these cities, or that the descendants of Nimrod founded all of these cities? It would be interesting to research the origin stories from all of these cities to see what they all said for themselves. What would be the similarities between the origin stories? Maybe this is impossible, but maybe not.
Story material: The Life of Nimrod.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Voltaire on the Soul
What does Voltaire have to say about the soul? A lot, and in fact very little. The question of the soul is a question of identity, spirituality and central really to the philosophical pondering of virtually every philosopher and thinker in most ages. What is the soul? Is it something physical? Is it something else? Does it really matter?
Voltaire, in his normal visceral way attacks and mocks just about everything out there in a wordy way to say something pretty bland, we don't know much about the soul because we can't know very much about the soul. He points out that Moses didn't mention much about the subject because all of his laws had to deal with the here and now and temporal aspects of life. Since, he seems to be a pretty important figure in the history of things it would be odd that he doesn't say anything about the subject if it's important. Voltaire points out that the Jewish notions of the soul aren't formulated until much later than Moses and that by the time three ideas of the soul in Jewish theology come about another mildly important figure goes out of his way to denounce the three sects: the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes.
The Sadducees believed that the soul would perish with the body. The Pharisees believed in a transmigration of the soul to some extent and the Essenes believed that the soul was immortal. Of course, the New Testament does show that Jesus was harsh on the Sadducees and Pharisees (the Essenes weren't specifically mentioned by name) but this harshness was derived from their hypocritical acts and not so much their theological positions but Voltaire happens to enjoy the straw man game so I'll indulge him.
Voltaire does make some hard points about the nature of the soul though. We have so many (as did Voltaire) contemporaries of our age who have vast amounts of knowledge of the entity that we call the soul. Nevermind that countless thinkers have wrapped their life's work around this subject only to come up with vague and partial understandings, young men and women of our age are experts on this material (or immaterial depending on their intellectual bent). Can we that are physical really have a knowledge of something that is not physical with absolute certainty? He points to a no. I think I agree with him. Though, in his mocking way he points to "revelation" as a possible means of knowledge of the soul. In this I think that he is being a bit sarcastic but I don't find the notion of divine revelation into the matter so worthy of scorn. I think that it is possible that revelation plays a crucial role in the understanding of things beyond the mere physical in human beings and why should the notion of the soul be any different?
Voltaire, in his normal visceral way attacks and mocks just about everything out there in a wordy way to say something pretty bland, we don't know much about the soul because we can't know very much about the soul. He points out that Moses didn't mention much about the subject because all of his laws had to deal with the here and now and temporal aspects of life. Since, he seems to be a pretty important figure in the history of things it would be odd that he doesn't say anything about the subject if it's important. Voltaire points out that the Jewish notions of the soul aren't formulated until much later than Moses and that by the time three ideas of the soul in Jewish theology come about another mildly important figure goes out of his way to denounce the three sects: the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes.
The Sadducees believed that the soul would perish with the body. The Pharisees believed in a transmigration of the soul to some extent and the Essenes believed that the soul was immortal. Of course, the New Testament does show that Jesus was harsh on the Sadducees and Pharisees (the Essenes weren't specifically mentioned by name) but this harshness was derived from their hypocritical acts and not so much their theological positions but Voltaire happens to enjoy the straw man game so I'll indulge him.
Voltaire does make some hard points about the nature of the soul though. We have so many (as did Voltaire) contemporaries of our age who have vast amounts of knowledge of the entity that we call the soul. Nevermind that countless thinkers have wrapped their life's work around this subject only to come up with vague and partial understandings, young men and women of our age are experts on this material (or immaterial depending on their intellectual bent). Can we that are physical really have a knowledge of something that is not physical with absolute certainty? He points to a no. I think I agree with him. Though, in his mocking way he points to "revelation" as a possible means of knowledge of the soul. In this I think that he is being a bit sarcastic but I don't find the notion of divine revelation into the matter so worthy of scorn. I think that it is possible that revelation plays a crucial role in the understanding of things beyond the mere physical in human beings and why should the notion of the soul be any different?
Genesis 9:18-28 - The Sons of Noah
Genesis 9:18-28 is a strange bit of the text. For one, it involves the origins of the peoples of the earth. Because the earth was destroyed by the Flood there needs to be a new origin story. From the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth come the people who "were scattered over the whole earth". But, this isn't the strange bit of text at all. That seems a pretty logical step from the flood story.
What is strange is the story of how Noah got drunk and passed out naked in his tent. When Ham discovers his father's naked body he tells his brothers. Now his brothers go out of their way to cover their father's body without viewing his nakedness. The Biblical text has already associated nakedness and shame in some ways. In Genesis 2 it states that Adam and his wife were naked but not ashamed. Then, when they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they became aware they were naked and covered up. So, at least in this context the nakedness is associated with some level of shame. So what Ham did was shameful to his father whereas Shem and Japheth were doing what they could to cover their father's shame.
When Noah woke up he cursed Ham for his wicked deed and blessed Shem and Japheth for their righteous act. The wording of the curse and blessing are notable. The cursing of Ham is to make Ham's offspring the slaves of his brothers. Harsh curse, but pretty straightforward. The blessing of Shem and Japheth though hints again at Noah's faithfulness to God. In blessing Shem he states, "Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!" In blessing his other sons, Noah is praising God.
What is interesting here though is contrary to God's cursing of Adam where God cursed the ground and the Serpent more harshly than Adam himself, Noah directly curses the offspring of Ham. I don't know if there is any major difference, it struck me though.
Noah dies in this passage at the age of 950 years old. Again we are struck with an incredible old age of a biblical character and I'm still not sure what to make of it.
What is strange is the story of how Noah got drunk and passed out naked in his tent. When Ham discovers his father's naked body he tells his brothers. Now his brothers go out of their way to cover their father's body without viewing his nakedness. The Biblical text has already associated nakedness and shame in some ways. In Genesis 2 it states that Adam and his wife were naked but not ashamed. Then, when they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they became aware they were naked and covered up. So, at least in this context the nakedness is associated with some level of shame. So what Ham did was shameful to his father whereas Shem and Japheth were doing what they could to cover their father's shame.
When Noah woke up he cursed Ham for his wicked deed and blessed Shem and Japheth for their righteous act. The wording of the curse and blessing are notable. The cursing of Ham is to make Ham's offspring the slaves of his brothers. Harsh curse, but pretty straightforward. The blessing of Shem and Japheth though hints again at Noah's faithfulness to God. In blessing Shem he states, "Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!" In blessing his other sons, Noah is praising God.
What is interesting here though is contrary to God's cursing of Adam where God cursed the ground and the Serpent more harshly than Adam himself, Noah directly curses the offspring of Ham. I don't know if there is any major difference, it struck me though.
Noah dies in this passage at the age of 950 years old. Again we are struck with an incredible old age of a biblical character and I'm still not sure what to make of it.
Genesis 6 - 9 - Noah & The Flood
Genesis 6 - 9 relates the story of Noah and the flood, a pretty familiar story to most. Genesis 6, as recounted earlier tells of how God chose Noah because he was righteous and relates some of the instructions. Genesis 7 gives an account again of how Noah is to bring the animals into the ark and tells of how God brought the flood upon earth, destroying every living creature who was not on board. Genesis 8 relates how God remembered Noah and his family aboard the ark and tells of how Noah, his family and the animals rescued by Noah emerge from the ark in the post-flood world. Genesis 9, up until verse 17 tells of God's covenant with Noah. In this little bit of the Bible we see a number of interesting things and stuff that raises some questions.
First, Noah is found righteous. What had Noah done to be found righteous in the first place. What set Noah apart from the other men of his age? Is it that Noah did all that God commanded of him or was there some preexisting righteousness in Noah not mentioned in the Genesis account?
Second, what are we to do with Noah's age? The Biblical account has him at 600 years old at the time of the flood? Are we to take that as a literal? Some of these questions about the ages have been raised before in our journey and we still need to research into them to find answers, if that is at all possible.
Third, in the text we have God commanding Noah to take two of every unclean animal but seven of every clean one. When did God give this demarcation? When did God call some animals clean and others unclean?
In Genesis 8 Noah builds an altar and sacrifices some of the clean animals to God as an offering. What prompts this offering and sacrifice?
In Genesis 9 God blesses Noah and his sons. Why is the "fear of dread" that the God places in the animals of Noah and his offspring a blessing? Also in this little passage God gives Noah and his offspring the animals as He had given the green plants of the earth to Adam. Is this an explicit allowing of men to eat the flesh of animals?
In Genesis 9:6 we see reference again to the Imago Dei. "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." This is a pretty strong ethical statement and ties into the image of God research we hope to continue on this blog. I don't know what yet to make of it, but since it seems to be a topic we've chosen to focus on here early in this journey it's worth mentioning to come back to at a later time.
There's a lot in the text here, but these questions will suffice for now. Hopefully, I'll be a bit more faithful in my studying in the near future and develop a bit more of a routine to continue my research.
First, Noah is found righteous. What had Noah done to be found righteous in the first place. What set Noah apart from the other men of his age? Is it that Noah did all that God commanded of him or was there some preexisting righteousness in Noah not mentioned in the Genesis account?
Second, what are we to do with Noah's age? The Biblical account has him at 600 years old at the time of the flood? Are we to take that as a literal? Some of these questions about the ages have been raised before in our journey and we still need to research into them to find answers, if that is at all possible.
Third, in the text we have God commanding Noah to take two of every unclean animal but seven of every clean one. When did God give this demarcation? When did God call some animals clean and others unclean?
In Genesis 8 Noah builds an altar and sacrifices some of the clean animals to God as an offering. What prompts this offering and sacrifice?
In Genesis 9 God blesses Noah and his sons. Why is the "fear of dread" that the God places in the animals of Noah and his offspring a blessing? Also in this little passage God gives Noah and his offspring the animals as He had given the green plants of the earth to Adam. Is this an explicit allowing of men to eat the flesh of animals?
In Genesis 9:6 we see reference again to the Imago Dei. "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." This is a pretty strong ethical statement and ties into the image of God research we hope to continue on this blog. I don't know what yet to make of it, but since it seems to be a topic we've chosen to focus on here early in this journey it's worth mentioning to come back to at a later time.
There's a lot in the text here, but these questions will suffice for now. Hopefully, I'll be a bit more faithful in my studying in the near future and develop a bit more of a routine to continue my research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)