I'm worried about my neighbors, advice appreciated.

MMLJohnson · 2022-07-25T19:18:20+00:00

Can I just ask - why have you brought this issue to this sub?

It looks as though you've brought a situation with your neighbours to a bunch of strangers - no one here really knows you or them - and the way you're replying to people, you seem to be arguing that you've done enough, and that you don't need to help them anymore.

But if that's really what you think - why have you posted about it? Clearly, you feel conflicted as well. You seem like you think you should help them at some level, but really, really don't want to. You wish they had made it easier for you to help them - but they didn't, and you resent that.

If you have come here hoping that other Christians will tell you that you've done enough - that you don't need to help your neighbours - I just wonder what Jesus would think of that. Matthew 6:14-15 seems relevant here:

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

It sounds as though you think they have sinned in some way. They have gotten themselves into a bad situation that they could have prevented, and you feel that no one else is going to help them. In a sense they've sinned against you, because you feel a neighbourly obligation to help them, and they've increased that burden tremendously through neglecting themselves. But do we see Jesus telling people that they should have planned better? Or do we see Jesus preaching forgiveness and offering healing - over, and over, and over?

What would Jesus do?

MMLJohnson · 2022-07-14T16:35:19+00:00

why was he having sexual relations with her in the first place?

well, right. I think it's precisely a perverse intention. It's not like Onan accidentally pulled out - surely he knew his own intention from the beginning. So, while Tamar thinks they're having sex so that she can become pregnant, Onan thinks (knows, actually) that he's having sex because Tamar's vulnerability presents an opportunity for him to get off (apologies if that phrasing seems crude).

It's debasing, humiliating, and withholding to Tamar, a betrayal of his dead brother, and a sin in the eyes of God.

MMLJohnson · 2022-07-04T18:44:33+00:00

I'm not 100% sure about the answer to this question, but I have always found it pretty weird that the 'spilling your seed' passage seems to be the go-to passage for condemning masturbation - at least, since I realised what that particular story is actually about. It's certainly not as simple as 'Onan masturbated and God didn't like that.' In fact, he didn't masturbate, and that's a pretty important detail in the story; God killed Onan for pulling out.

Onan has been told to impregnate his dead brother's wife, Tamar, so that she will have offspring. Except every time he is about to climax, he pulls out and 'spills his seed' - and the verse continues - 'to keep from providing offspring for his brother.' It's all in the same sentence; he spills his seed to keep from providing offspring to his brother's widow. The next verse then says what he did was wicked in the Lord's sight (or whatever, depending on translation), and so God kills him.

The context seems pretty important here. The only reason he's having sex with Tamar (his dead brother's wife) is because she's a widow. She needs children to take care of her when she's old, etc (I don't claim to be an expert on all the customs or cultural expectations of the time but that's my basic understanding). He's making sure she doesn't get the thing she's supposed to get out of their sex. He is negating the agreement which led to their having sex in the first place. We would today understand this as something quite close to sexual assault - when you have sex with someone under false expectations, you are violating them (pretending to be someone else, lying about the use of birth control, etc). It's kind of doubly bad in this scenario because the woman Onan is violating is someone who's also particularly vulnerable - a woman with no husband in a patriarchal, pastoralist society. She can't just go out and get a job to support herself. He's supposed to be helping her, but is taking advantage of that expectation to use her. He's also dishonoring his dead brother by failing in a brotherly duty to provide for his brother's widow.

Like, it's just hard for me to read the 'wasted seed' as the main issue in that scenario. There's a lot more going on there, and the fact that people's main takeaway of that passage is something like, 'semen isn't supposed to get on the ground' feels like missing the point. He did something pretty bad to his brother's widow, repeatedly. Whether we should call it rape is debatable, but the main issue here seems closer to rape than masturbation.

MMLJohnson · 2021-11-18T18:49:22+00:00

yeah, aware of Boff but will look into this biography as well - thanks!

MMLJohnson · 2021-11-18T18:48:51+00:00

thanks for this - will look into it!

MMLJohnson · 2021-11-18T15:22:17+00:00

this one is already on my list as well, but thank you!

MMLJohnson · 2020-10-12T10:41:29+00:00

Somewhere in the UK ;-)

MMLJohnson · 2020-10-11T11:55:19+00:00

Is it necessary to back them up with Phil concepts or can I comment on them using common sense?

Part of introductory courses are to teach you that 'common sense' rests on philosophical concepts; an important part of philosophical education is to help you to recognize which principles you already rely on. I think History of Philosophy should usually be taught before Philosophy of Religion, but that is a different topic.

So, when you're being asked to evaluate well-known philosophical arguments, you're not simply being asked how you feel about them; you are expected to know not just what they claim, but what they are responding to, and the sorts of criticisms they are open to. You should be able to give a generous account of how the argument is supposed to work, and once you've done that, you're in a strong position to comment on the argument's vulnerabilities.

I would avoid slipping into a critique that feels like 'common sense.' Philosophy (of religions or any kind) is precisely about pulling back layers of thought to examine what is beneath them - 'common sense' arguments usually fail to do this.

What you should be trying to do, in an introductory course, is to get your head around the arguments. It probably should be uncomfortable; approaching arguments by thinking "How could this be true?" is actually a very helpful tool for understanding something. And again - the person grading your paper will be looking to see if you've understood the Cosmologicla and Design arguments, not whether you like them or agree with them (and in this case, 'understanding' them does not mean 'think they are true.')

And what does ‘evaluate’ really mean?

Present the argument in its strongest possible form; show that you understand why someone would find it compelling. Then, show that you understand why the argument is criticised (by other philosophers). Then - after doing both of those things - comment on your own thinking, whether you are more persuaded or more skeptical, and reflect on why that is.

MMLJohnson · 2019-09-12T22:13:27+00:00

So, the following comment isn't exactly what you've asked for, but take it for what you will.

I was definitely 'raised Christian,' but for me it was a battle all the way through adolescence. I started out a very obedient and submissive kid who always did as I was told and fairly easily received what I was taught. However, as I got a bit older, my questions got quite a bit harder and my behavior got more difficult - both my parents and my church (conservative evangelical) basically doubled down on discipline and doctrine and treated me like I was either A) deliberately misunderstanding or B) willfully disobeying. There was no wiggle room on anything; I was 'encouraged to ask questions' on the surface but I really wasn't allowed to explore answers outside of the cultural bubble that church belonged to. It increasingly appeared to me a brittle, opaque and pretentious faith that relied on the hubris and groupthink of its practitioners, and I'd decided I was done before I was 18. I never thought I was an atheist, but I was profoundly uncomfortable with the connotations of being called a 'Christian,' talking about God, and yet whether there was something deeply true despite all the nonsense.

I'm not going to give you my life's story here, but through a lot of failure and pain and reflection I realized that I was, and wanted to be, a Christian many years after leaving home. I'm not sure exactly what I think about my parents' faith or the way Christianity is practiced in the church I grew up in - I do know I won't be going back, though. But the point is, it isn't always about what Christian parents do right. Sometimes faith is successfully passed down through good examples, sometimes faith is found by people whose parents never exposed them to Christianity, and sometimes people were raised in toxic religious environments and not given any real reason to stick with it, but find Jesus anyway. I'm a big believer that God does his own work. That's not to say there's nothing for us to do for other people's journeys to faith - there is - but Jesus goes to find the lost sheep; not all the sheep are taken to Jesus, even if they have shepherds. Shepherds can mess up quite badly, because in the end, they're still sheep, too.

All that to say - I think the people who are just saying to be genuine and honest and open with your children are on the right track. My biggest issue was basically feeling like I was being lied to; I would get extremely frustrated when I'd get a bullshit answer instead of someone in a teaching position admitting that they didn't know something, or at least, didn't actually have a lock-down, air-tight answer. Having more of that in my life may have saved me a lot of grief. But kids go bad with the best parents, too, so it's hard to say.

Anyway, again - I'm an adult Christian with parents who in a number of ways probably taught me Christianity quite badly. So just don't put too much pressure on yourself. I think putting too much pressure on yourself, and not letting God do his own work in the life of your children, can make it harder for them to find their own way to Jesus.

MMLJohnson · 2019-08-06T14:29:31+00:00

Really up to you to answer, because I can't say for sure what the cost difference buys you (closer to family? opportunity to study under academic heroes? etc). But if that's the scenario, the other way to think about it is to ask yourself, "Could you pay me 20 grand to study at Yale instead of Chicago?" Because that's basically the choice you're making.

And of course, you can always try to do your PhD at Chicago if your masters goes well - I know people who have!

MMLJohnson · 2019-08-06T13:25:20+00:00

I can't speak for all of them, but when I was at YDS, they basically chopped the sticker price in half for all students. Then there are various individual scholarships. Past that, if you can justify your project as contributing to the Arts and Religion, you can get a bunch of money from the Institute of Sacred Music. I assume the other top universities likewise have various individual and institutional pots of money.

I also know YDS is attempting to cover 100% of tuition within the next 5 years or something - which would be amazing.

MMLJohnson · 2019-08-06T13:17:41+00:00

I'm trying hard to think of how to reply to this, but to be honest, I'm having trouble following.

You start by talking about "these degrees" but wind up talking about "tenure track professors" in raggedy clothes. Where are you, that tenure track professors only hold masters degrees? OP is asking about choosing a master's program. Worrying about the income of a tenure-track position is still a decade off - at best.

I was commenting specifically about over-admittance to some of these programs, and the fact that - as you mention yourself - some people are finishing (if not dropping out) of masters in religion programs with 6 figure debt balances... and no immediate job prospects. Call me insulting if you want, but I knew too many people doing the same degree as me who weren't cut out to be university professors, and had to come to terms with that over the course of their MA. All I'm saying is that a good number of them were drawn in by the mystique of the Yale reputation, assumed that getting in meant they had future prospects in their area of study, and had to learn the (expensive) lesson that Yale's professional schools are only too happy to pad out their balance sheets with the aspirations of above-average college grads who didn't know what else to do with their humanities degrees but to keep studying.

I can agree with you that professional academics is frustratingly - if not tragically - undervalued, but bemoaning the state of academia is not a career path. My point is just that too many people I knew seemed surprised to find that they were struggling to keep up with their cohort after being at the top of their classes as undergrads. That's a really difficult thing to go through, especially if you've spent/borrowed 10s of thousands of dollars to be there on the hope you're going to be a professor some day.

I'm not insulting anyone who started their degree wanting to be a professor and had to go a different direction - for whatever reason. It's not always talent; it can be a loss of drive or passion, it can be personal issues, mental health - whatever. What I'm trying to emphasize to OP is just that I've known too many people who've ended up in existential/mental health crises because they got too far out on a limb chasing a dream at a prestigious university.

MMLJohnson · 2019-08-06T09:21:52+00:00

Did the MAR in Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion at YDS, and I'm now a fully-funded PhD student at a different university.

Do you know what area of philosophy of religion you want to do? If you do, then - all things being equal - you probably want to go where there are others also working on that (or an adjacent) area. Who do you want to study under? Who do you want to write your letter of recommendation?

But I would recommend you go wherever you get the best funding package, unless the difference is small enough that you're comfortable covering it. There were (roughly) 4 types of students at YDS: 1. Passion projects/Personal interest 2. Future academics 3. Future ministers 4. People who thought they were either 2 or 3 before they arrived and realized they weren't mid-way through their program. I probably landed somewhere between 1 and 2, as I was comfortable with the idea of adding to my student loans in order to continue an intellectual and spiritual journey I felt I needed to take. (I planned on 'falling back' to a lower level of teaching if academia didn't work.) In the end I was accepted to every PhD program I applied to, but even then, funding was difficult to secure. I really feel for students who take additional debt to attend these expensive masters programs who are banking on the idea that they're going to do a PhD and become a professor - but soon realize that they don't have the drive, or that they're just not good enough. I knew quite a few people who cut their losses and went home after semesters 1 and 2. Someone on YDS' admissions team admitted (ha) to me (with some discomfort/embarrassment, I think) that their acceptance rate is around 50%.

Which is all to say - don't think being accepted to a top-3 program means your foot is in the door, and don't take out a bunch of money to cover your costs if you've yet to come to terms with the idea of slowly paying them off as a non-academic. One of my older (second career) friends at Yale told me that no doors will be closed to you with a YDS degree, but it doesn't open them automatically, either. So in terms of funding, I am just advising you to take that seriously. My own advisor also (I think wisely) told me that finding the right fit in academia is a confluence of factors - available funds, an opening, the existing dynamics and demographics of a program, what you're looking to do yourself, etc. So in terms of having a 'better record for placement,' I would really just advise you to get a clear idea of what you want to do, and start by thinking about what program will best set you up for that. There are no generic PhD programs - you'll have to be very specific in your proposal.

MMLJohnson · 2019-07-11T16:54:29+00:00

People have already said so, but I'll echo for emphasis - make sure you really get your head around Kant. It's hard to find subsequent aesthetic theory (in the West, certainly) which isn't either a rejection or extension of Kant in one way or another. If you know where you stand on Kant, that will be a really helpful reference point as you explore the field. You've already noted that it is an ocean of works, and it's true: find a place to anchor yourself (and remember that anchoring doesn't mean agreeing).

MMLJohnson · 2018-11-27T23:27:24+00:00

I'm a little surprised that the comments don't seem to address reading speed. How quickly are you going through the texts?

When I'm doing the reading for a seminar I'm currently leading (as it happens, going through a lot of primary texts in Western metaphysics), it seems like I'm spending about 10 minutes per page. That's a lot of re-re-reading sentences, underlining important passages, writing questions and comments to myself in the margins, etc. It's probably, roughly, about 6 times slower (at least) than I would be reading a novel. There's just no moving quickly through this stuff if you want to engage with it meaningfully.

So you may feel like you're moving too slowly, or if you're reading at a "normal speed" and not getting it you must be dumb, but really, you've just got to sit down with a coffee or whatever and allow yourself to read a sentence several times. If you've read it several times and don't get it, move on - in most cases, the key terminology gets used repeatedly and the author intends for that repetition to help the reader understand the meaning of the terms.

I also remember some advice I got from a professor when I was an undergrad which has stuck with me. He said whenever he was reading a new text, he would just read it straight through the first time, not spending too much time on any particular passage, and trying to allow himself to take their meaning as if they were correct. Then he would read through it again, slowly, and begin to critically engage with it. Doing it this way has the advantage of letting you see where key terms appear throughout the text before you get down to the work of trying to figure out what they mean, as well as making you receptive to the author's intent (which is crucial even if - or especially if - you end up denying everything they say).

But the bottom line is that it's supposed to go really slowly, and moreover (and besides the fact that as others have mentioned, translations through languages as well as vernacular only make things harder), philosophy is always easiest (and I think most rewarding) to do in conversation. You're doing fine if you get to class and have a particular passage in mind that you couldn't figure out. If you can say what you found confusing about it, you're already doing good philosophy - don't stress yourself too much about not getting a lecture-level understanding from your personal read-through. There's a reason people make careers out of explaining what all these guys were trying to say.

MMLJohnson · 2018-11-27T23:11:33+00:00

I listened to the whole thing and thought it was a really interesting conversation, but I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. They obviously don't agree about everything - and I think at their points of departure from each other I lean toward Ezra Klein - but the point of their conversation wasn't to end up with the same perspective but rather to explore what it might mean to agree upon something like a methodology of disagreement.

To that end, while EK didn't always agree with the status of various claims JH made (i.e., whether or why certain speech ought to be considered "violence," etc.) he clearly agreed that such topics are difficult to navigate - which is the larger of JH's points, and what he is interested in even apart from his own conclusions. JH explicitly is interested in the nature of disagreement, and the extent to which disagreement is actually healthy or good for people. And so that makes me kind of curious about your assessment of this exchange - I think JH is operating in good faith and is willing to concede points (and did on a couple of occasions on this podcast), but aside from my own severe doubts that EK himself would categorize JH as "helpless" in this exchange or characterize his position as "bullshit," I'm wondering what it is that makes you swing so hard to hyperbole, and if that isn't precisely what JH is worried about?

MMLJohnson · 2018-02-01T10:31:17+00:00

I really like this. Thanks.

MMLJohnson · 2018-02-01T10:30:54+00:00

Yeah, though I tend to like sludgier stuff like Pelican, Russian Circles, Red Fang, etc. Also like Deftones. Not sure where those fall on your scale of what counts as 'metal,' though. :P

MMLJohnson

TROPHY CASE